‘Feature Complete’?

[Stephen10188]

A letter about being ‘Feature Complete’?

 

I recall seeing some time ago that HarvesterR Described the game as being feature complete, and although this caused some level of complaint from the community at the time most of this focused on that fact that the game didn’t yet include all features that a given player would like to see added. The main counter argument was that if squad thinks its feature complete it must be by definition (as they are the Devs). I did not write anything much at the time, as the point seemed moot given that they committed themselves to additional development anyway.
However, with the latest updates being mainly languages and a thematic expansion it seems that If we are to challenge the idea that the game is feature complete now is the time to do so.

So that’s what I’m doing. The point of this post is to highlight what feature compete means and illustrate that though most of those denying KSP’s status as a feature-complete game are doing so for the wrong reasons, they are never the less correct. Therefore, to do this we must define the term:

A Feature is a way that the game works and a component of gameplay that is not content I.e. Not parts, planets, missions etc., but core gameplay functionality. For that reasons thought there is lots of content I would like to see added it is not relevant to this post.
The more controversial part of the definition is what do we mean by ’complete’? Obviously the devs have the main say in what complete means to them, but at the same time a game isn’t completed based purely on their say-so. (To illustrate this, imagine a football game without any players implemented, It wouldn’t matter how many times you describe it as complete, if it lacks the key functions to be described as a football game, it simply isn’t true.) For this reason to be feature complete a game must be declared as such by the devs once it has achieved the following 2 things:

1. Contain all key features that one could reasonably expect and describe as essential for a space programme simulator game.

2. Contain all of the features that the devs themselves say it must contain to be feature complete.

In its current state KSP doesn’t fully meet either of the above requirements. To be specific it falls short in 3 key areas. I will now describe them:
(Note: Though I am aware that some of the below present as ‘challenging’ to resolve from a development point of view, I’m not avoiding prescribing specific solutions out of a lack of ideas, but rather because how I would like to see it solved isn’t necessarily how other’s would suggest a solution and so, again, I’d be describing specific content rather than features if I went into detail here on how I would like a solution to look)

1. Life support

The biggest challenge with putting a man on Mars or maintaining functioning space station is not the rocket technology but rather keeping astronauts healthy and sane for that length of time. To simply overlook this issue, in your game, is comparable with overlooking fuel requirements. You’re simply not addressing one of the main problems/issues facing a space programme if you don’t address the need to life support.

 Thought it’s an added consideration that some players may dislike (Just another thing to worry about) it could be toggle-able and gradable, just like comms requirements, money requirements or science/tech requirements. So leaving it out on the basis that not everyone would enjoy the added challenge is a poor excuse. In this category of missing features, we also previously had re-entry heat issues, and comms issues but these have now been successfully implemented in a considerate and sensible way that allows for scaling and selecting of the associated difficulty. So why not life support? Unless you address the need to maintain, food, water, air and health/sanity you are not a complete space programme simulator/game so cannot be called feature complete any more than you could without rocket engines.

      2. Late game structure/balance/direction.

At present, there is enough science in the Kerbin system to unlock the full tech tree (its infinite now) so why leave? There is no end goal or specific need to go to any other planets, and the nuclear engine is far enough up the tech tree that you’re pretty much complete game-wise by the time you’re effectively capable of going inter-planetary (at least as a new player).

Although, this issue has been mitigated with introduction of missions, they are too random and there is no need to ever prioritise the main story-line missions (the Milestone ones); they can just be ignored. After all what does Bop currently have to offer anyway?

There needs to be more emphasis on direction, more late game content to make the pursuit of additional planets/science worthwhile* and some sort of end-goal (Though this need not force an end to your adventures). I say ‘need’ because it is not properly balanced otherwise, you have overcome 80% of the challenge by the time you are 10% of the way through the content. **

Again, there are plenty of solutions out there already but I am not here to request a specific approach, just to point out that in its current format, the difficulty does not scale in a challenging way or provide directional incentive to try ever-harder things, it’s not good game-balancing. And so as a game this feature is in need of devlopment for KSP to be considered ‘feature-complete’.

       3. Multiplayer

It is a game feature, that you have committed to and so falls under point 2 of the definition. I know that current and previous devs have suggested all kinds of ideas that have not ended up in the game and there has never been a requirement to pursue each any ever one. However 2 things make multiplayer different:

1. It is the only ‘feature’ rather than ‘content’ that falls into this category of being an absent by definition of being short of what the devs describe as their implementation goals.

2. As Devs you’re not committed to any idea until you say ‘We are committed to implementation of…’, which is what happened RE multiplayer.
   (By definition, if being devs makes you the arbitrators of what must be included to be ‘feature-complete’ and the only people with the power to commit yourselves to anything, then multiplayer must be an absent feature because you have called it as such.)

Again I know that there are implementation issues RE time warp and that these are hard to overcome, But modders have managed it by allowing players’ instances to differ from a central timeline that they can then snap back to post-missions so that everyone can get things done at the speed they like but share goals. Whilst this might not be your preferred route, you can come up with one, you’ve done it some many times before on other features and modders have on this one so it is not only possible but there’s clearly a desire for it among the community.

Whilst there are many, many other things I would like to see added I know that most of these are ‘content’ and not gameplay ‘features’ and/or not features that fall into the above 2 categories of what the game would need to have to be considered ‘feature-complete’ and so I wont include them here to preserve the integrity of the points I’ve made.
Again, this is not me requesting a specific solution or demanding a specific outcome, At any point you could pull the plug and refuse to finish it off. It’s simply me stating definitions and what those definitions logically imply. I Therefore present this information to you in the hope that it will inform your thinking on future development.

 

Appendix

* I note that more challenging biomes and more science collection incites to more unlocks which in turn incites to exploring more biomes etc. in a cycle. However, this could be overcome if some of the late game improvements were quality of life/efficiency focused so that they didn’t have to lead on to a whole new set of science (just replay-ability with added convenience instead)

** There is also an issue where, at best, the current directional tools (The missions) are misleading, in the order they send you to the planets. Having played for a long time, I know that Eve is the hardest planet for landing and returning a manned mission, yet it is right next to Kerbin. Whilst this makes sense in the context of their real world analogues, for a player unfamiliar with the difficulties associated with visiting Venus/Eve they are unlikely to go there last despite the fact that such would be advisable from a difficulty-scaling point of view. This is made all the worse by the fact that the current mission order specifically directs you to Eve straight after Duna. I am aware that at 1 point another gas-giant was planned with a collection of end-game moons to assist with this difficulty-scaling issue, and though any specifics of such a thing are clearly content, some sort of better method of signposting objectives based on increasing difficulty is clearly needed from a feature (game balancing) point of view.

[DAL59]

@Stephen10188 You haven't been here for... 4 years.  Welcome back.

[Lisias]

"Feature Complete" is not exactly "Completely Featured".

I'm somewhat agree that the base game is "Feature Complete" (what not means that all Features are completed). Anything else will probably be added up with DLCs, "Making History style". And I agree with that - the alternative would be deprecate the game and sell "KSP 2.0".

 

[Stephen10188]

@Stephen10188 You haven't been here for... 4 years.  Welcome back.

Thanks. I have been reading stuff in the intervening time, I just rarely feel the need to respond. Ive actually been running the game on and off throughout the whole time (I even run a club at our school for the Kids to Play the EDU version). haha

Edited June 28, 2018 by Stephen10188

[Superfluous J]

If enough people want a feature, they should consider adding it. If enough people don't care, they shouldn't bother.

I think Multiplayer and Life Support - most people don't care about. I'd never use either unless Squad's version of Life Support was very different in some way that I can't even imagine, than all the mods I've tried.

I think not just the late game but the whole game needs a balance pass. Note, I did not say "another" balance pass as many say because I don't think whatever they did before could really count. Cost, mass, and all other settings of all parts need balanced relative to each other and relative to the difficulty of the game.

I don't care one whip if more planets and moons are added. Each one will give me a half hour of new content, tops. I want something to do on the planets we already have. I won't go into it because others have done far better in the past, but suffice it to say a reason to go back to a world (and no "You need 1500 more science and have only been to 2 of the 9 biomes" is not a reason. At least not a GOOD one) after visiting it would be very welcome.

[MR L A]

Well written and well thought out. I agree with pretty much everything you've said, though I'm always hesitant when somebody mentions MP - though here your intention is perfectly clear i.e. not somebody else screaming "where is it!?/this game needs it!" and I agree that there are solutions, especially with invite only games and cooperative timewarp requests between players (though tbh, I think it would just be fun to fly around kerbin with a friend instead of switching vessels mid-air... so lonely).

Also, slightly worried about how they would implement life support into the game. I've tried the two popular mods for it and I don't like how either of them work particularly if I'm honest. But I do agree with considering it as a needed (though optional in-game) feature of a space program game.

5 hours ago, Stephen10188 said:

there is enough science in the Kerbin system to unlock the full tech tree (its infinite now)

This is news to me - when, why and how was this change made? 

Career late-game balance does need to be changed... though there is a good mod for this that makes science much more labour intensive. Can't remember its name currently. But if we're honest, career mode is often criticised as somewhat lacking for numerous reasons. Sometimes I understand this, other times I don't - I ALWAYS play career mode unless I'm testing some funky new design with parts I haven't unlocked yet; I find it much more entertaining than sandbox... but then again, I am the kind of guy to play with reverts off, respawns off, purchase of unlocked parts etc

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, MR L A said:

This is news to me - when, why and how was this change made?

Before Biomes were introduced you couldn't do it in Kerbin's SOI and you needed (IIRC) about 2/3 of all the science available in the entire game to unlock the tech tree. When they introduced Kerbin/Mun/Minmus biomes though in.. 0.24 I think? ... you could from that point unlock the whole tree from Kerbin's SOI. Nowadays you can literally get infinite science given infinite time through missions to asteroids. Each one provides a unique science experiment that you can do in all biomes you can get the asteroid to. And with a science lab you can easily crack the entire tech tree with full loadouts of science experiments from just a few Minmus biomes.

I answered when and how. As to why I don't know, but it probably has to do with the fact that something like 90+ percent of KSP users never leave Kerbin's SOI.

Edited June 29, 2018 by 5thHorseman
I misunderstood the question. I had answered it, but I edited the post for clarity nonetheless.

[MR L A]

7 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

infinite science given infinite time through missions to asteroids

Ohhhh, I forgot about these!

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, 5thHorseman said:

I think not just the late game but the whole game needs a balance pass. Note, I did not say "another" balance pass as many say because I don't think whatever they did before could really count. Cost, mass, and all other settings of all parts need balanced relative to each other and relative to the difficulty of the game.

Hear.  Hear.

7 hours ago, Stephen10188 said:

1. Life support

The biggest challenge with putting a man on Mars or maintaining functioning space station is not the rocket technology but rather keeping astronauts healthy and sane for that length of time. To simply overlook this issue, in your game, is comparable with overlooking fuel requirements. You’re simply not addressing one of the main problems/issues facing a space programme if you don’t address the need to life support.

I've felt this way since I started playing KSP.

[steve_v]

Count me as exactly this ^.

[Wjolcz]

tl;dr MORE PARTS!!!!!!!

I will only say that I still remember procedural craters to be coming to more bodies than one (AFAIK currently they are only on the Mun), "Shmelta-Vee" still isn't stock and "science" points are still just research points and I'm not even gonna talk about career mode because that's what awakes my demons.

Allthe rest I can mod (+dV indicators), so I don't care that much.

[Tyko]

On 6/28/2018 at 11:03 AM, Stephen10188 said:

1. Contain all key features that one could reasonably expect and describe as essential for a space programme simulator game.

2. Contain all of the features that the devs themselves say it must contain to be feature complete.

Only item 2 is entirely valid. The game is, by definition, feature complete when the devs say it is. There really is no "reasonable expectation" in Feature Complete. Each of us have different expectations and if you applied your logic then they would have to satisfy all of our reasonable expectations. What your inclusion of point 1 is really saying is you want them to make the game you want and that's not how Feature Complete works.

Life Support - would be nice, but it's not required to make the game feature complete and many / most people wouldn't use it anyway. It's an advanced feature that makes the game harder and the game is already hard enough for beginners. If they added LS it would likely be so dumbed down that those of us that enjoy the added complexity would keep using the mods. Personally, I'd be fine with Stock implementation of USI-LS, but again, that's what I consider reasonable and I understand that others will have very different opinions.

Late Game structure/balance/direction - I would consider a balance pass of the entire game a necessity. I think it's very "reasonable" that the various parts of the game are balanced against each other. I won't consider the game complete until they've gone through all 5+ years of legacy content and brought it all to a consistent standard.

Multiplayer - IIRC this was mentioned in the pre-release phase as something that they wanted to explore. This is way different than saying "MP is on our roadmap". And back to point 2 above - if they devs have decided not to add MP, then it's not a feature that needs to be completed. Features plans get cut all the time with products. It's part of the natural design process to lay out a large set of goals and then pare them back to a final feature set.

I wish they'd quit devoting time to features I don't care about - Mission Planner and Steam Integration were a waste of their time IMHO. I realize others might disagree and that's why the whole idea of "reasonably expect" doesn't really work.

TL:DR - it's feature complete when Squad says it is, period 

Edited June 29, 2018 by Tyko

[klgraham1013]

15 hours ago, Tyko said:

many / most people wouldn't use it anyway.

Citation needed.  Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.  I have a suspicion that if LS was in the game from the get go, this wouldn't even be a discussion. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by klgraham1013

[StarStreak2109]

On 6/29/2018 at 1:23 AM, 5thHorseman said:

If enough people want a feature, they should consider adding it.

If only they take their time to implement it properly and not juryrig something that is exactly like an existing mod...

[klgraham1013]

10 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

If only they take their time to implement it properly and not juryrig something that is less than an existing mod...

Fixed.  *thumbs up*

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, StarStreak2109 said:

If only they take their time to implement it properly and not juryrig something that is exactly like an existing mod...

Which I think is safe to say they've done in the past. The stock comms is not RemoteTech. The fairings aren't ProcFairings. The "new" atmo isn't Ferram.

Some will say they're less. I like them all better than the mods they are similar to.

[StarStreak2109]

I don't mind if new game features are added like the ones you mentioned. What I mind are new features like this godawful mission thingy. If that's the future, then I will forego looking into these new features.
All of this also granted that they do not irreversibly break similar mods, like the new aero broke KW fairings...

 

[StarStreak2109]

1 hour ago, klgraham1013 said:

Fixed.  *thumbs up*

I don't know. There are many ways how to approach a certain problem. Take life support for instance. Would you say that the way USI does LS is right and TAC is wrong?!?

In the same way, the new stock communication system is less than Remote Tech, but for the casual player just right (IMHO). But both approaches are good and valid.

OTOH if a feature was added, that does not integrate into the base game well, introducing new bugs and other issues, then I would not call it less. I would say I'd rather take the well established mod, thank you, and leave this new feature DLC in the shelf.

So it's not about less or more or if it's already covered by a mod, for me at least is how is it integrated into the game (stable, good GUI, sensible interaction with the game play, added value).

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I don't know. There are many ways how to approach a certain problem. Take life support for instance. Would you say that the way USI does LS is right and TAC is wrong?!?

In the same way, the new stock communication system is less than Remote Tech, but for the casual player just right (IMHO). But both approaches are good and valid.

OTOH if a feature was added, that does not integrate into the base game well, introducing new bugs and other issues, then I would not call it less. I would say I'd rather take the well established mod, thank you, and leave this new feature DLC in the shelf.

So it's not about less or more or if it's already covered by a mod, for me at least is how is it integrated into the game (stable, good GUI, sensible interaction with the game play, added value).

True.  True.  Personally, I'm a fan of consistency.  Seeing as we have Liquid Fuel and Ore, a simplified "Food" resource would fit right in.  I actually quite like the new comms system.  The scanning system is fine once you have Orbital Survey plus installed.

Bowing to the "casual" player has never made sense to me.  KSP is not a game for casual players.  Expect the explosion happy folk.  Which shouldn't be the focus anyway.  Just as the Souls games, XCOM, and the better fighting games don't bow to casual players, KSP should know it's audience and know what it's trying to be.  This is a game about traveling through space using semi-realistic systems.  Casual should not be the target audience. 

[Tyko]

8 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Citation needed.  Otherwise, I generally agree with your statement.  I have a suspicion that if LS was in the game from the get go, this wouldn't even be a discussion. 

I'm not citing anyone. I formulated my opinion based on these points:

1. I've read many times on the forums that most people don't even leave the Kerbin local system. for most trips to Mun / Minmus LS would be essentially a handwave anyway. USI-LS gives a 15 day grace period for Supplies which allows time for most Mun / Minmus missions without even bothering with Supplies. I'm not sure that a Stock system would have a grace period, but I expect it wouldn't be sudden death, that's not aligned with how the game runs now.
2. The game as it stands now has a really steep learning curve. Adding more complexity will only scare new people away. So you'd likely have to make it an advanced "hard level" option, but then many players likely won't ever go there.
   1. The same player type that says "I don't need DV because I'm having fun building and launching rockets by trial and error" isn't likely to want the added burden of math calculations for LS. This is Harvestr's original game play model and it doesn't seem like Squad has deviated far from it because they still don't include DV
   2. Another big group that primarily builds terrestrial planes, boats, etc won't care

In summary, I don't think it would be used by casual players and a system that's simplified enough to "try" to be usable by casual players won't satisfy people who want the bigger challenge offered by the mods. So you're stuck with a, IMHO, relatively narrow window between those two groups.

[Klapaucius]

7 hours ago, StarStreak2109 said:

 What I mind are new features like this godawful mission thingy. If that's the future, then I will forego looking into these new features.

I have to disagree with you there. Yes, I don't do missions per se, but as a new player with only a certain number of hours in the day, the Mission Builder has allowed me to put myself on Laythe, Duna, Eve  etc to test aircraft in alien environments without having to mount major missions. That does not mean I won't do so down the line, but I like the options. It is a sandbox mode for locations.

Also, the whole reason I started playing was I was asked to teach kids in an afterschool program and I had to learn it. The idea was to use KSP to give them a very basic sense of how rockets, orbits etc work.  By far the hardest and most frustrating thing for someone new to the game is getting in orbit. The kids can get stuck there and get frustrated. Sometimes, it is useful to put someone already in orbit so they can then proceed to other things, like getting into Munar orbit or landing. They can then go back when they have a few other successes under their belts. 

[StarStreak2109]

7 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

I have to disagree with you there. Yes, I don't do missions per se, but as a new player with only a certain number of hours in the day, the Mission Builder has allowed me to put myself on Laythe, Duna, Eve  etc to test aircraft in alien environments without having to mount major missions. That does not mean I won't do so down the line, but I like the options. It is a sandbox mode for locations.

Also, the whole reason I started playing was I was asked to teach kids in an afterschool program and I had to learn it. The idea was to use KSP to give them a very basic sense of how rockets, orbits etc work.  By far the hardest and most frustrating thing for someone new to the game is getting in orbit. The kids can get stuck there and get frustrated. Sometimes, it is useful to put someone already in orbit so they can then proceed to other things, like getting into Munar orbit or landing. They can then go back when they have a few other successes under their belts. 

You misunderstood me. Missions are great and all, I meant how it was implemented...

[Klapaucius]

5 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

You misunderstood me. Missions are great and all, I meant how it was implemented...

Sorry about that. Fair enough.

[mattinoz]

On 6/29/2018 at 4:03 AM, Stephen10188 said:

2. Contain all of the features that the devs themselves say it must contain to be feature complete.

Do you have references for the Dev's saying the features you list are essential for the game to be complete?

It's been a long while a lot has been said and I'll admit I've only been following Dev Notes from 2013ish.  1 & 3 I know have been referred to as features that would make for valid expansion packs. 2 is something all games should seek but also something all games have quirks with that become part mythology of the game. So it may not ever be possible for balance to be complete and not need another tweak.

One thing is the Dev's clearly stated the aim was to make a Tycoon Game this feature is clearly missing. Even if Career mode was wedged in over two version in order to call it 1.0 release.  So I'm not saying it's feature complete but will concede is probably as complete as it's going to get given current path and without something to really reboot interest. Yes all 3 would be nice.

 

[DH8SpaceWolf]

On 6/28/2018 at 8:03 PM, Stephen10188 said:

A letter about being ‘Feature Complete’?

 

I recall seeing some time ago that HarvesterR Described the game as being feature complete, and although this caused some level of complaint from the community at the time most of this focused on that fact that the game didn’t yet include all features that a given player would like to see added. The main counter argument was that if squad thinks its feature complete it must be by definition (as they are the Devs). I did not write anything much at the time, as the point seemed moot given that they committed themselves to additional development anyway.
However, with the latest updates being mainly languages and a thematic expansion it seems that If we are to challenge the idea that the game is feature complete now is the time to do so.

[...]

1. Life support

[...]

      2. Late game structure/balance/direction.

[...]

       3. Multiplayer

[...]

[...]

I agree on your list of features, but would like to add one entry: detailed physics around multiple 'active' crafts (Maybe included in the third feature, or as first step towards a multiplayer mode). So your recoverable Boosters don't disappear magically while your main craft is reaching orbit/ goes farther away from the booster. Though I am unsure how this feature would be designed in detail. I did expected this from a space program simulator and was severely disappointment when i discovered this was missing. I hope it will be implemented with a DLC focusing on modern space missions.