Kerbal Space Program DLC: “Breaking Gound” Grand Discussion Thread

[boomchacle]

8 hours ago, Kerbart said:

That’s a serious allegation. Are you suggestion Squad is ripping mods, inserting them in the game as if they wrote it themselves? Yes, that is absolutely deplorable.

I thought that they were adding functionality to the game that is greatly wanted by most players, and that was offered in the past by a mod but is no longer available.

Squad is offering something the mods can’t offer: continuity, and superior integration into the game. As far as I’m concerned the next five DLC’s can offer only “mod functionality” if it removes pressure on the mod community for “essential mods.” (You know who you are.)

Every update I observe with clenched butt cheeks. Will my beloved mods still work? How long until they are updated? And I’ve lost a few over the years. Squad, take my money, for my peace of mind.

This is not the first time that KSP has taken very generous amounts from current mods and added them into the game, but it is the first time that they directly (Edit) took a mod's idea, re skinned it, and then pasted it as a paid DLC. (edit I did not mean that they literally use source code from a mod) Usually, when they take a mod's ideas and use them very closely, they just go into the base game. I personally think that DLCs which add parts are fine as long as they don't add parts which create a huge difference in gameplay mechanics. If they wanted to add a new story line and use that as a DLC, I'd be totally fine with that, but Right now, it just seems like they are doing the least amount of work they can to make a new gimmick that they can sell to people who have nostalgia for unsupported mods.  

We're sitting on years of Technical debt which continues to go ignored. There's thousands of known bugs which have been sitting and festering without being looked at for years and we have no idea what the money for these expansion packs are going to go towards. If KSP becomes a game with 20 DLC Packs and thousands of 5 year old glitches and Bugs, I'd be pretty disappointed, because they didn't actually use the money from previous DLC packs to actually improve the game, but just make more money.

7 hours ago, T1mo98 said:

They revamped 1.25m tanks, they revamped 2.5m tanks, they revamped numerous engines and tons of other stuff. There is NOTHING that implies that they wouldn't ever revamp the 3.75m parts.

The DLC has been updated with every update made, bringing bugfixes, balance tweaks and they added a 5m nosecone in 1.7. Saying they never maintained the mod is simply false.

Most of these revamps were not asked for by the KSP community. The only change they actually made to my gameplay is that now I can no longer tell the difference between 2.5 meter and 3.75 meter fuel tanks by just looking at them in the part list. It has honestly made my experience in the SPH slightly worse now that I choose the wrong part half of the time.

Edited May 9, 2019 by boomchacle
Clarification

[HebaruSan]

4 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

they directly took a mod, re skinned it, and then pasted it as a paid DLC.

That's not correct.

[boomchacle]

Just now, HebaruSan said:

That's not correct.

have you ever used infernal robotics? I am just wondering because It is quite an old mod

[Phoenix84]

13 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

This is not the first time that KSP has taken very generous amounts from current mods and added them into the game, but it is the first time that they directly took a mod, re skinned it, and then pasted it as a paid DLC. Normally, when they copy mods or mod mechanics, they just go into the base game. I personally think that DLCs which add parts are fine as long as they don't add parts which create a huge difference in gameplay mechanics. If they wanted to add a new story line and use that as a DLC, I'd be totally fine with that, but Right now, it just seems like they are doing the least amount of work they can to make a new gimmick that they can sell to people who have nostalgia for unsupported mods.  

We're sitting on years of Technical debt which continues to go ignored. There's thousands of known bugs which have been sitting and festering without being looked at for years and we have no idea what the money for these expansion packs are going to go towards. If KSP becomes a game with 20 DLC Packs and thousands of 5 year old glitches and Bugs, I'd be pretty disappointed, because they didn't actually use the money from previous DLC packs to actually improve the game, but just make more money.

I don't want to take a side in this, but I have a couple a points to address:

1) Do you have proof? Ideas are not protected, actual implementation is.

2) Given we haven't seen the update, there's no way to know for this release if it's true (unless you have special access, and can address #1).

IANAL, but making a statement like that I believe is libel if you are incorrect. This is why proof is required, or this discussion is meaningless.

Keep in mind, the idea of something cannot be protected. Only the actual implementation is. For example, "a communication network for ships to be controlled over" is an idea. Actually taking code directly from RemoteTech and inserting into the base game is protected, and cannot be done without the copyright owner's permission (unless the KSP/Squad/Take2 EULA says otherwise).

Edited May 9, 2019 by Phoenix84

[HebaruSan]

8 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

have you ever used infernal robotics? I am just wondering because It is quite an old mod

That's of no relevance. They haven't "taken a mod," they're developing the functionality from scratch.

(Yes, I have.)

[boomchacle]

1 minute ago, Phoenix84 said:

I don't want to take a side in this, but I have a couple a points to address:

1) Do you have proof? Ideas are not protected, actual implementation is.

2) Given we haven't seen the update, there's no way to know for this release if it's true (unless you have special access, and can address #1).

IANAL, but making a statement like that I believe is libel if you are incorrect. This is why proof is required, or this discussion is meaningless.

Keep in mind, the idea of something cannot be protected. Only the actual implementation is. For example, "a communication network for ships to be controlled over" is an idea. Actually taking code directly from RemoteTech and inserting into the base game is protected, and cannot be done without the copyright owner's permission (unless the KSP/Squad/Take2 EULA says otherwise).

oh I get what you mean and I didn't mean that they literally stole the mod's source code, but took great inspiration from a certain mod. I'll edit my previous post because I can see how much it looks like I am saying they actually did that.

[Phoenix84]

15 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

oh I get what you mean and I didn't mean that they literally stole the mod's source code, but took great inspiration from a certain mod. I'll edit my previous post because I can see how much it looks like I am saying they actually did that.

Great, I'm glad that was cleared up.

To address your inspiration remark, I can see both sides of it. 1) Squad should do something original, vs 2) Squad should add what people want

1 & 2 aren't always the same thing. They tried #1 with MH IMO. This DLC is more targeting #2.

Personally, the way I look at is this: there are mods that add significant gameplay value, and really affect how players interact with the game. Some of these mods also have a lot of problems, because they have to hack their way around the game to do things (which is why the Kraken happens so much with IR or SEP).

I see this as an opportunity for the developers to focus on one aspect of gameplay a mod adds (before, it was RemoteTech, now it's IR), and really make that gameplay a first-party, supported gameplay experience. To phrase it inaccurately: "I look forward to playing with IR without the infernal breakage that always happens."

Doing something like this requires core engine fixes and improvements we can't see, but quite possibly will affect the actual mod itself in a positive way. Changes which could very well be in the base game, so players using IR can take advantage. Now I don't mean the extra APIs and whatnot for the stock robotics, I mean engine stability changes. Such as the robotic parts (stock or non-DLC modded) being properly strutted without problems, deploy without problems, and actually work with aerodynamics without problems.

What this means is even if you don't buy the DLC, IR could work even better than it does now.

Of course, this is speculation, and we won't know how much is in the core engine until we see it. However I don't doubt there will be some core non-DLC game benefits.

Other people mention planet surface mounting stability fixes as well, which may very well improve SEP even if you don't get the DLC.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Phoenix84

[boomchacle]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix84 said:

I don't want to take a side in this, but I have a couple a points to address:

1) Do you have proof? Ideas are not protected, actual implementation is.

I don't know exactly which of my points you are addressing, but I will assume you mean my statement where they essentially took a mod and put it into the game.
I am pretty sure that KSP worked with Pork jet on the Spaceplanes plus part pack to integrate it into the game, Roverguy109 with regolith for the asteroids, and a few others. It's not a bad thing that they did this, I'm just making a point that they have used mods for the base game in the past and the new robotics parts seem like just another mod that they would be adding to the game, but this time it's in a DLC, not the base game.

[Phoenix84]

1 minute ago, boomchacle said:

I don't know exactly which of my points you are addressing, but I will assume you mean my statement where they essentially took a mod and put it into the game.
I am pretty sure that KSP worked with Pork jet on the Spaceplanes plus part pack to integrate it into the game, Roverguy109 with regolith for the asteroids, and a few others. It's not a bad thing that they did this, I'm just making a point that they have used mods for the base game in the past and the new robotics parts seem like just another mod that they would be adding to the game, but this time it's in a DLC, not the base game. 

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I wasn't addressing your points. I meant I had several points myself to lay out in relation to your post.

And I see, you weren't meaning using them without credit or permission, you just meant "at all" even with modder help.

[razark]

On 5/9/2019 at 12:33 AM, boomchacle said:

I personally think that DLCs which add parts are fine as long as they don't add parts which create a huge difference in gameplay mechanics.

So, you think DLCs should add parts, which mods can do easily, but that they shouldn't modify gameplay, which DLC/Expansions have been doing for decades?

 

On 5/9/2019 at 12:33 AM, boomchacle said:

If they wanted to add a new story line and use that as a DLC, I'd be totally fine with that

There's no storyline now, so that would be a complete and utter change to gameplay, which you just said you were opposed to.

 

On 5/9/2019 at 12:33 AM, boomchacle said:

we have no idea what the money for these expansion packs are going to go towards.

The money is going towards me getting some more content.  As long as they pay the dev staff, I really don't care, nor have any say in, what the rest of the money goes to.  That's how profits work.

 

On 5/9/2019 at 12:33 AM, boomchacle said:

...they didn't actually use the money from previous DLC packs to actually improve the game, but just make more money.

There's nothing at all that says the money from DLCs has to go to improving the base game, rather than [snip] management parties.

 

On 5/9/2019 at 12:33 AM, boomchacle said:

Most of these revamps were not asked for by the KSP community.

And?  Can you show me, prior to the original announcement that before KSP existed, that anyone was asking for KSP?  Squad is not obligated to add requested, and only requested, content.  If they wanted to add unicorns and 8-bit renditions of swing music, then that's their prerogative.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Gargamel
Portions Redacted by Moderator

[boomchacle]

On 5/9/2019 at 1:09 AM, razark said:

There's nothing at all that says the money from DLCs has to go to improving the base game, rather than [snip] management parties.

That is correct, however, when the main point of some people's arguments is that DLCs are the only way for the game to improve, it seems like at least some of it should go to the game.

 

On 5/9/2019 at 1:09 AM, razark said:

There's no storyline now, so that would be a complete and utter change to gameplay, which you just said you were opposed to.

That would not change the gameplay of a person because while there might be new missions to do, the basic concept of launching rockets and doing missions would still be there, but the missions would be different.

 

On 5/9/2019 at 1:09 AM, razark said:

And?  Can you show me, prior to the original announcement that before KSP existed, that anyone was asking for KSP?  Squad is not obligated to add requested, and only requested, content.  If they wanted to add unicorns and 8-bit renditions of swing music, then that's their prerogative.

While it's true that the KSP devs are not obligated to do anything at all, it's a bit of a kick to the mouth when we've been asking for things for years and they just ignore it, but instead put their time in to things that nobody asks for and does almost nothing other than make a few parts look different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUXChw_6plE

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by Gargamel
Portions of Quote Redacted by Moderator

[razark]

8 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

That is correct, however, when the main point of some people's arguments is that DLCs are the only way for the game to improve, it seems like at least some of it should go to the game.

Well, the main point of some people's arguments seems to be that a company charging money for a product is immoral.  I'll ask you, though, how is the game supposed to improve if the company has no income?

 

8 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

That would not change the gameplay of a person because while there might be new missions to do, the basic concept of launching rockets and doing missions would still be there, but the missions would be different.

If I had to follow some pre-set course of missions, it would sure as hell change my gameplay.

 

8 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

it's a bit of a kick to the mouth when we've been asking for things for years and they just ignore it

Yeah.  I've been asking my boss for a pay raise and less work, and my landlord for lower rent, but they just ignore me, too.  Those stand-up guys sons of mothers that were unwed (yeesh...).

Edited May 9, 2019 by razark
Because the filter is a thing that is.

[boomchacle]

Just now, razark said:

Well, the main point of some people's arguments seems to be that a company charging money for a product is immoral.  I'll ask you, though, how is the game supposed to improve if the company has no income?

Charging money for DLCs is not immoral and that is not my argument. However, It did seem like you expected the money made from DLCs to go back to the game, otherwise you would not have said that "The money is going towards me getting some more content.  As long as they pay the dev staff, I really don't care, nor have any say in, what the rest of the money goes to.  That's how profits work." What I am saying is that they have not been able to give us more content that actually matters. There has not been a significant update since the incredible update where they improved the performance of KSP massively, and all I've seen is more bugs, broken stuff. There's an inability for me to actually make things that work because KSP decides that my vehicle should actually be traveling at near the speed of light because I used too much autostrutting, or When I undock two wheeled vehicles, all 20 of the heavy wheels need to suddenly break, or any of the other thousands of known bugs that have not been addressed for years. When the playerbase of a game is vocally asking KSP to fix the bugs, and they just... dont... I just feel like they dont actually care about us.

[razark]

10 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

more content that actually matters

Define, please.  Make sure you include objective standards to measure what "actually matters".

11 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

significant update

Define, please.  Make sure you include objective standards to measure what makes an update "significant".

12 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

There's an inability for me to actually make things that work

Not sure what you're referring to.  I've made plenty of vessels that work.

12 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

When I undock two wheeled vehicles, all 20 of the heavy wheels

Two, or twenty?  What are you even talking about?  Potato in my vesicles with red marksmanship yesterday, Robert?

 

14 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

I just feel like they dont actually care about us.

Stop being a source of income and see how much they really don't care.

[T1mo98]

2 hours ago, boomchacle said:

Most of these revamps were not asked for by the KSP community. The only change they actually made to my gameplay is that now I can no longer tell the difference between 2.5 meter and 3.75 meter fuel tanks by just looking at them in the part list. It has honestly made my experience in the SPH slightly worse now that I choose the wrong part half of the time.

The 2.5m and 3.75m parts look nothing alike in the Parts list and the 2.5m parts even have that little icon for different variants.

Also, most the community was glad we were getting revamps. It's only a small amount that don't like some of the revamps they did. All the tank part revamps were generally very well received, so this isn't Squad's problem, it's yours.

[Superfluous J]

3 hours ago, boomchacle said:

have you ever used infernal robotics? I am just wondering because It is quite an old mod

Have you used the stock implementation? I'm just wondering because it's not been released yet.

But from what I hear the ui is totally different, and that is enough for me.

[micha]

Just a quick point on the ludicrous assertions that the Devs haven't been improving the game.

I'm really sorry, but **where** have people been since 1.0?  The base-game has been **significantly** changed/improved **for free* (to the players) since then. The people that bought the first DLC have **probably** (I don't have access to Squad's accounts so no way to prove/disprove this claim) helped fund some of that development.

Again, on the claim that the devs have only increased "technical debt", what a load of bllcks.  Many many bugs have gotten squashed. Sadly others have been introduced, but that's par-for-course for a complex piece of software.  Regardless, it's definitely provable that the game, overall, is far more playable and stable than it used to be, as well as more feature-rich. Most of the old versions are still available for download; just run one against the current version and see for yourself.

Now, whether any of those changes have been things **you personally** have wanted or not is immaterial.  The fact is that many changes and improvements have been made that at least some people have wanted. Can't please everybody all the time and all that.

[OopsThatNotWork]

Will there be unique surface features for each planet? Or repeats across the system?

 

[DrDam]

The only question are if that will be a "ARM like" DLC or a "Making History like" DLC 

[klesh]

I would like to know how long this DLC has been in QA vis a vis the last DLC. 

I would like to buy this DLC on day one, but it took months after the last DLC to fix some pretty basic bugs.  Bugs I would argue should've been caught in the quality assurance phase of development.  That's really my biggest concern.  $15 is easy money for what I would consider my favorite game, but I don't want to have to make 10-15 bug reports on stuff like "This part has its center of mass wrong" or "These 4 parts that span the range of sizes from 0.625 to 3.75 all have the same mass values and costs."  I don't want to make 10-15 bug reports, and I dont want to wait 3 months for them to be fixed.  I'd like some assurance that they're learned from their mistakes and invested more in delivering a high quality product out the gate.

[boomchacle]

8 hours ago, micha said:

Again, on the claim that the devs have only increased "technical debt", what a load of bllcks.  Many many bugs have gotten squashed. Sadly others have been introduced, but that's par-for-course for a complex piece of software.  Regardless, it's definitely provable that the game, overall, is far more playable and stable than it used to be, as well as more feature-rich. Most of the old versions are still available for download; just run one against the current version and see for yourself.

I'm glad you've been having a good time with the game, but unfortunately, it's been running consistently worse and worse for me every single update and the kraken seems to introduce itself even more as often as it can. Even when my ships have as little as 200 parts, It's sometimes almost unplayable. Asteroid bases dissapear or spawn inside of their asteroids, ground vehicles destroy themselves when I switch to them from another vehicle outside of their loading range, and wheels are super weak and break when you decouple things off of a ground vehicle, even if you have a ton of wheels, ect

[Phoenix84]

5 minutes ago, boomchacle said:

Even when my ships have as little as 200 parts

Back when I played more, you wouldn't want a ship with more than 200 parts.

So, that's not surprising. Last I played, physics reached the limit at that amount.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, boomchacle said:

Even when my ships have as little as 200 parts

That's like saying "even going as slow as 20 m/s my craft still crash instead of dock"

200 parts is and has always been a lot. Doable, sure, but not at 60fps with all the settings up and tons of mods.

[Epicdreamer]

I just don't get most of the discussion here. Since 'Breaking ground' hasn't been released yet, we just don't really know what it will behold. I'm looking forward to the dev-news. So to me sharing an opinion about the Breaking Ground DLC at this moment in time is just for opinions sake, based on a lot of assumptions, well mostly assumptions if you'd ask me. By the way I know all of the mods presumably being added in this DLC in one or another form, but I'm still very curious about Squads take on these gameplay features.

And making a point as if it would count for everyone looks like generalising to me. There are as many opinions as there are players (or humans for that matter).

If you don't like the DLC when it is released, if you don't like what it presumably beholds or if you don't like your personal idea about why a DLC is released, then just don't buy it. No need to discuss it really. 

I'm going to wait and see what it brings, but it has to be really dissapointing (after release) for me not to buy it.

[boomchacle]

12 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

That's like saying "even going as slow as 20 m/s my craft still crash instead of dock"

200 parts is and has always been a lot. Doable, sure, but not at 60fps with all the settings up and tons of mods.

ever since the performance update, 200 part ships are pretty much my average ship now. It really depends on how powerful your computer is. Yeah, you're not going to be getting 60 fps, but frame rate is not what I am not complaining about. I am talking about the kraken deciding that it wants to invade my space. my 200 part boats tend to explode for no reason which is really annoying, but whatever.