Resources - postponed, cancelled or reserved for a DLC?

[czokletmuss]

It would be actually funny if Kethane evolved into something big and then, in 6-10 months, Squad changed is mind and tried to buy the code from the Kethane team

[Rosarium]

It would be actually funny if Kethane evolved into something big and then, in 6-10 months, Squad changed is mind and tried to buy the code from the Kethane team

so is substantially our fault to do not have a vanilla resource system...

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Complaining like this is more likely to get KSP canned than to get you the feature you want, the vast majority of KSP players want multiplayer, it's requested almost daily, and only a relatively small number actually ask for resource mining, more people ask for life support than resources.

Let me try this as well: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=ksp%20kethane%2C%20ksp%20kmp%2C%20ksp%20multiplayer&cmpt=q A totally different outcome.

[RTS321]

Let me try this as well: https://www.google.com/trends/explor...iplayer&cmpt=q A totally different outcome.

Actually, just adding 'Kethane' without the 'KSP' prefix reveals about twice as many (assuming the scale is linear) searches, it is also considerably higher than 'ksp life support'. Back on topic, I would like to see resources in the game however the situation does not look favourable.

[czokletmuss]

Community Manager said that there will be some clarification from Squad about all this in the next few days, so I say we should be patient and wait for the statement.

[dudester28]

Squad changing there mind isn't all that unlikely. For example, I remember that up until a certain point, squad clearly stated that docking would never be added. Then, they figured how to make it work and promptly added it.

[ElJugador]

My interpretation now that I've seen the video:

They just said it had to be tweaked. Not that it had been canned. I don't understand the furor.

[czokletmuss]

Changing plans is not a problem. Saying nothing about this for moths after teasing the community with screenshots and plans and basically saying "it will be ready in a few updates from now" is a problem IMHO.

[PDCWolf]

Squad changing there mind isn't all that unlikely. For example, I remember that up until a certain point, squad clearly stated that docking would never be added. Then, they figured how to make it work and promptly added it.

The problem comes when you show charts, screenshots, gifs, parts, and playtest the feature and then saying you will either not include it or include it in a dumbed down manner.

[darpavader]

My interpretation now that I've seen the video:

They just said it had to be tweaked. Not that it had been canned. I don't understand the furor.

I saw it live and I'm pretty sure Harvester said that it was not coming because it was too complicated and wasn't fun. Which is a shame. So much of this game is complicated until you get a better handle of things:

1. Launching a rocket without blowing up.

2. Getting into orbit.

3. Soft landing on the moon.

4. Docking.

5. Getting into deep space.

etc, etc, etc. I hope they don't want dumb down what could go down as one of the great games.

[Sigma117]

The upside to the announcement is that Kethane can be made a lot better now. As it stood (Imo) Kethane couldn't do a large upgrade because there was always a feear it would get phased out an update or two down the line by stock resources. With this not being the case, I can see Kethane stepping up.

[SkyHook]

The upside to the announcement is that Kethane can be made a lot better now. As it stood (Imo) Kethane couldn't do a large upgrade because there was always a feear it would get phased out an update or two down the line by stock resources. With this not being the case, I can see Kethane stepping up.

Majiir expressed this around 0.21 (I think) and has been developing the mod ever since

[B787_300]

Majiir expressed this around 0.21 (I think) and has been developing the mod ever since

He also said on page 18, the last post on the page...

[tntristan12]

Indeed. Majiir is doing fantastic work with Kethane and I can only imagine what he'll be able to accomplish if the devs truly decide to scrap resources altogether. However, as I've explained on another thread, mods should not be substitutions for stock gameplay. If they do not enhance features already in the game then they are effectively substitutes for features that either should or should not be added depending on how they mesh with the overall theme of the game, and what they provide to the gameplay directly. Anyone on this forum will be able to explain more eloquently than I how relevant in-situ resource gathering is to real life space travel, and could go at length about all the benefits it would provide to the game.

I personally think resources gathering would be amongst the heartiest of meat-and-potatoes content the game could provide and getting rid of it is essentially eliminating one of the most potentially interesting features. In light of this there is absolutely no reason for it to not be in the game. Arguments that it is "too grindy" or "too repetitive" seem to miss the point that grindy and repetitive does not necessarily mean bad (just look at Minecraft, which essentially boils down to "lift block, place block"). Arguments that it would be too complicated for the new player to grasp are not giving enough credit to the target audience of a game that is essentially about rocket science; we all know there is a base level of ingenuity and wit required to play this game to begin with.

At any rate, resource gathering would and should be completely optional to begin with, and would really only have relevance after the tech tree has been completely unlocked (which is currently the weakest thing about career mode). I see resources as an excellent way for players to acquire funds, gain reputation, and create off-planet bases for jumping off to other areas of the solar system. Resource mining could even be a stepping-stone to building and fueling end-game technologies that would let players fly to other star systems and explore whole new sets of worlds (all things that would be available from the get-go in sandbox mode, but need to be earned in career mode).

As far as using mods to substitute for this basic gameplay, here's what I think as mentioned here:

I honestly feel like no game should rely on a third party outside of the developers and the intended audience in order to reach the state of gameplay it was supposed to be at to begin with. If you will forgive me for indulging in a slippery slope / strawman argument for a moment, a very respected video game analyst named Jim Sterling (you can catch his segment the Jimquisition at www.escapistmagazine.com) once detailed a phenomenon where triple-A game developers would do an awful job porting console games over to PC with the expectation that third party modders would fix the port's flaws. That is *not* okay! In my own experience, I could tell you the endless frustration I had playing orbiter because I struggled to sort out all the mods I needed for basic features such as sound, high-resolution textures, EVA, and more extraterrestrial bases, but orbiter gets a pass on that because it's a free program only done as a hobby to begin with.

But KSP does not need to, and in fact should not have to rely on third party modders for basic gameplay features! Now, we can argue what constitutes a basic gameplay feature, and I would say that a prime target for this debate would be Mechjeb. I love Mechjeb, and I think it's a very useful mod, but the base game already provides a myriad of tools that allow players to control and guide their own spacecrafts manually so Mechjeb isn't really necessary to complete the gameplay experience. Resources on the other hand do not even have a basic current implementation in the stock game, and so adding them is perfectly reasonable to expect. So you say "well Kethane already does that so why not install Kethane?" Well, I've already explained why games relying on third party support for things they should have done to begin with is not an okay thing, but besides that Kethane adds an entirely new gameplay mechanic rather than just augment or modify an existing one. I hope you can see why this is a completely different thing than Mechjeb simply providing more information and tools to guide your spacecraft from point A to point B which you can already do in the base game.

Ultimately the decision to add resources and/or multiplayer is squad's decision, and if they choose not to add one or the other you can bet there will be a host of mods to fill the demand. That said, I hope my post has made clear why third party modders should never have to do squad's work for them, and rather should create enhancements to existing features that give advanced players more tools to play with. And that's all I really have to say about that.

Edited December 16, 2013 by tntristan12

[Dodgey]

From reading all 40 odd pages of this thread I have noticed a few things that I would like to point out before adding my 2cents about resources.

Number 1: I have seen many accounts of people complaining that Squad has given in to pressure from the community by "ditching" resources and adding multiplayer, purely due to pressure from the community, appealing to a wider audience as it were. While those same people have been complaining that Squad has had a major breakdown in communication with the community.

Firstly, if this was the case wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Squad will quickly add resources in due to the "large" reaction by the community?

Secondly, if they are doing this to appeal to the/a wider audience isn't that the point? To do what the majority would like/wants? Isn't that the essence of democracy? Never have I once considered it good to concede to what the minority wants. (I'm not saying that democracy applys to the relationship between game developers and their community)

Thirdly, touching back to my first point, the majority of the posts I see that are compliaining are essentially saying that Squad is listening to the community too much and not enough at the same time.

Number 2: A few people have complained that the "ditching" of the resource system (I think thats what it should be called, moving on) is a violation of their rights as a consumer as they have purchased KSP under the pretense that it would be eventually be added, and having it under planned features and promising it is false advertising.

Firstly, I would like to bring your attention to the terms page of the Kerbal Space Program website where it describes the terms of purchase and I quote:

"Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.

Squad is under no obligation to implement any given set of features prior to the final release for KSP or any future title. All posted lists of planned features are unofficial and do not imply a promise by Squad to deliver anything listed in them.

Squad reserves the right to add, remove and modify content on any of its software at their own discretion, without prior notice.

Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion."

I do believe that this should end all arguments withholding with regards to people complaining about the lack of communication (blackout about resources post 0.19) and any "broken promises" made by Squad.

Now onto my 2 cents about resources, concentrating on the content only. I have seen many people saying that resources would of added a new depth to the game and such however I fail to see how. I've seen people say things like multiplayer would change nothing about the gameplay but if I had resources I would be about to create a self sustaining colonies ect when there is nothing else to explore. But unless Squad was going to add some major infrastructure to the game and add many more mechanics such as large bases built by multiple docked parts nessacary, satellite networks needing to be complex, ect. Those people bored by the current game would expirence all that they could find to expirence rather quickly and that would be that. Another feature brushed under the rug. The same would be said for multiplayer, they would join a server, play with a friend or two, do the same stuff and call it a waste of time.

Now, those player who are still finding new and exciting ways of having fun with little or no mods now, would see multiplayer, add a second person into the equation and square the amount of ways to have fun. It's only limited by your own imagination. That's my 2 cents. Mods sorry if I said anything that I shouldn't have or brought up topics I shouldn't of.

[ArmchairGravy]

Looking at the flow chart in the OP, I'm glad they are re-thinking. That in no way looks fun to me. If resourcing is to be optional, it may as well continue to be a mod.

[tntristan12]

Number 1: I have seen many accounts of people complaining that Squad has given in to pressure from the community by "ditching" resources and adding multiplayer, purely due to pressure from the community, appealing to a wider audience as it were. While those same people have been complaining that Squad has had a major breakdown in communication with the community.

I don't think people are accusing Squad of caving in to community pressure. More like the decision to pursue multiplayer is largely unpopular because the official stance to any request for it has always been "it will never be part of the game because it does not fit in with its scope, so stop asking" while resources have been officially stated to be "in the pipeline" for a year now, with official postponements and official media releases etc. So the breakdown in communication comes from the fact that their position on both of these mechanics seems to have changed over night and they never once indicated that they were considering to do so until at the very last moments of Kerbalkon.

Firstly, if this was the case wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Squad will quickly add resources in due to the "large" reaction by the community?

If all of their decisions were based on the amount of community support for that plan, yes it would be reasonable to assume that.

Secondly, if they are doing this to appeal to the/a wider audience isn't that the point? To do what the majority would like/wants? Isn't that the essence of democracy? Never have I once considered it good to concede to what the minority wants. (I'm not saying that democracy applys to the relationship between game developers and their community)

Again, this would be a reasonable assumption if the relationship between Squad and the community was in fact a democratic one, which it isn't.

Thirdly, touching back to my first point, the majority of the posts I see that are compliaining are essentially saying that Squad is listening to the community too much and not enough at the same time.

As I mentioned before, you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the problem. Nobody believes Squad is "listening too much and not enough" at the same time. The problem is that Squad has been charading at transparancy for months now with their KSP weekly releases, without providing any true depth or insight into their decision making process, leading to this baffling reversal of their longstanding policies.

Number 2: A few people have complained that the "ditching" of the resource system (I think thats what it should be called, moving on) is a violation of their rights as a consumer as they have purchased KSP under the pretense that it would be eventually be added, and having it under planned features and promising it is false advertising.

Firstly, I would like to bring your attention to the terms page of the Kerbal Space Program website where it describes the terms of purchase and I quote:

"Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.

Squad is under no obligation to implement any given set of features prior to the final release for KSP or any future title. All posted lists of planned features are unofficial and do not imply a promise by Squad to deliver anything listed in them.

Squad reserves the right to add, remove and modify content on any of its software at their own discretion, without prior notice.

Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion."

I do believe that this should end all arguments withholding with regards to people complaining about the lack of communication (blackout about resources post 0.19) and any "broken promises" made by Squad.

Yes, yes we've seen this mentioned a thousand times. The problem isn't that Squad is violating their TOS, which exists primarily to avoid frivolous lawsuits leveled against them over stuff like this, but that their recent actions have shown a disregard for their consumer base that has been widening ever since they started closing off experimental releases to the general public. The issues you're commenting on are long-standing and have just been getting worse as Squad grows larger and larger. There's really nothing new going on here.

As far as Squad's TOS are concerned, I've already remarked on this at length. Generally, just because Squad gives itself the right to do something doesn't mean that doing it is necessarily the right thing to do. My actual comments were:

I would just like to point out that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean people aren't going to call you out on it, if it creates a divide between you and them. Squad has given themselves a contractual out, but that doesn't mean that ignoring the community and bullheadedly pursuing a path that is generally unpopular isn't going to impact the popular opinion of the game. It is their right to do whatever they want to the game to be sure, but if people stop supporting their development and spreading the word of how good the game is that's not in their best interest either. It's a tricky tightrope they walk on right now.

Now onto my 2 cents about resources, concentrating on the content only. I have seen many people saying that resources would of added a new depth to the game and such however I fail to see how. I've seen people say things like multiplayer would change nothing about the gameplay but if I had resources I would be about to create a self sustaining colonies ect when there is nothing else to explore. But unless Squad was going to add some major infrastructure to the game and add many more mechanics such as large bases built by multiple docked parts nessacary, satellite networks needing to be complex, ect. Those people bored by the current game would expirence all that they could find to expirence rather quickly and that would be that. Another feature brushed under the rug. The same would be said for multiplayer, they would join a server, play with a friend or two, do the same stuff and call it a waste of time.

Resources are an integral part of space exploration. In order to sustain a long-term presence on other worlds (and this is true in real life as well as in KSP), a base would need to be able to draw from the environment. This would fuel all kinds of other, more interesting features such as life support, interplanetary economics, and would allow for the research and development of late game technologies that could (for example) only be built by resources mined on hard-to-reach worlds, and would allow you to go to other star systems (which is the holy grail of any space-faring effort). Even with its most basic implementation (Kethane is my go-to example), you would need to set up reconnaissance orbiters to locate deposits, scout out landing sites in the richest of those deposits, then engineer delivery methods for large, difficult to move pieces of equipment. This challenge provides a logical progression from the typical "explore and do science" missions that KSP players are currently undertaking.

Setting up a mining op would also require you to set up an interplanetary freight system so you could move Kerbals and resources to your other outpost in as efficient a manner as possible, which is an indicator of a long-term permanent presence on other worlds. That in itself should be enough, even without the possibilities of using these gathered resources to build new rockets off-world, or sell them back on Kerbin to make a profit for your space program, or allowing you to research and power end-game technologies. I would NOT call that a waste of time.

Now, those player who are still finding new and exciting ways of having fun with little or no mods now, would see multiplayer, add a second person into the equation and square the amount of ways to have fun. It's only limited by your own imagination. That's my 2 cents. Mods sorry if I said anything that I shouldn't have or brought up topics I shouldn't of.

I do not think multiplayer has any place in this game, which has always been a primarily single-player experience. The devs have always maintained this position until just recently, and their recent change in position is why people are so incensed now. If they did come out with a multiplayer, that would not be a bad thing in and of itself, but it should be the very last thing they do. Nobody wants to see them pour resources that could have gone into developing more interesting and relevant gameplay mechanics to come out with yet another incomplete gameplay mode.

[nholzric]

But I actually think DLC is a great idea. Why? First of all, Squad will make more money. It's good for us, because it means that the company will prosper and hey, who wouldn't want to buy KSP 2 in 5-6 years? Second of all, KSP is ridiculously cheap - I payed for it $16 and calculating (price/hours of fun) it was one of my best decisions ever in case of entertainment. Third of all, it'll be a guarantee of a decent resources system. Why? Because Squad will have a clear financial motivation to do so - and getting money from DLC could mean more free improvements for the KSP itself, just like Paradox does with CK2 or EU4.

SIGH. You just caused my little capitalist heart to grow two sizes today.

I LOVE the whole Indie/In-development* game experience (based on Minecraft and KSP - yes, small sample size, maybe I just got lucky -whatever). And I loath the prospect of DLC, I want the free ride to last forever! But seriously, as you point out, $16 for how much fun? Yeah, I got WAY more than my money's worth out of KSP even if I never update again.

That being said, I would feel let down if they didn't round out Career Mode before the end; add in cost-budget mechanics, probably some sort of mission generator. While resources would be cool, and would make KSP that much more sophisticated, it does sound like a good candidate for DLC. Thanks for the new perspective czokletmuss!

*In-development games that are not Indie are the worst. Witness SimCity - what did that cost, $50? It's like the inverse value proposition of KSP, lots of money, little fun. Sorry for the off-topic, yes I am bitter.

[tntristan12]

While resources would be cool, and would make KSP that much more sophisticated, it does sound like a good candidate for DLC.

If resources were released as DLC I would undoubtedly get it, since I got KSP for $10 ($3 of which was a voluntary donation) at the very beginning and would gladly shovel more of my money their way. However, I would hope it's clear for the many reasons I've outlined previously that resources are an integral part of space exploration, and releasing it as DLC would smack to me of how EA makes so much goddamn money by releasing the same 12 Sims expansions for each base game release... But perhaps I am just a little hurt from this whole debacle.

[TNM]

wait....no ressources? hm, human exploration (not only in space) is about "learning to live off the land", and that involves ressources. I thought KSP was about Kerbals going into space and staying there? Ressources and consumables are both part of that, a big part. How can they scrap this?

Isn't the interesting part of KSP the challenge to master spaceflight? Why should they think it "too complex" for us to understand we need ressources to survive in space? Isnt that what keeps ppl interested in KSP? How boring would the game be if you could reach space with every crappy rocket you build? But i noticed a trend with the new engine (sabre) to make a "one fits all" part.

Never be afraid of complexity. Just focus on a good UI and a way to explain how everything works. Dumbing down games never worked for very long.

Well, buying "early access" games always is a risk, maybe KSP will be my first dud in that regard.

Edited December 16, 2013 by TNM

[Nexustrimean]

Message from Harvester Regarding Resources

I think there is a large amount of inaccurate overlap here between what the top-end of KSP gameplay needs and what the old resources system was supposed to add.

I agree that once you master the challenge of spaceflight and are able to get anywhere and pretty much do anything, you start to feel there isn't much left to do. This is true of any game. However, most games at that point just end and you get to watch the credits roll by. With KSP, you are free to continue playing until you've exhausted all possibilities, and beyond. This "end-game lull" is a frequent issue with sandbox games.

However, I disagree that resource mining-- especially the idea for resource mining that we proposed last year-- is the best solution to improve end-game activities. There are a lot of other cool things that we could add there, that would be a lot more interesting and fun, and that wouldn't require an overly complicated and honestly, very tedious system to give you new cool things to do.

What those things are aren't something we want to discuss yet. For all we know at this point, whatever new idea we disclose now might end up turning into a new 'resources', that later needs to get scrapped, so let's not get into that discussion now.

One thing that needs to be made clear though, is that a game in Early Access, while it shares a lot in common with the usual MMO-style development process (without any regard to payment model either, that's an entirely separate and off topic thing here), it is different in that while the MMO is essentially complete from the start, and receives new updates to extend the content for players who have done everything, the Early Access game is still incomplete, and must devote its development time to adding features that maybe might not seem important to experienced players, but that make it easier to be picked up by new players, or that make the overall game experience more complete even if that doesn't make it more lengthy.

That's not saying we won't ever add more things to do on the end-game level... However, you may notice it's even been mentioned several times here that the key thing is that people feel that once you land on another planet, there isn't much else to do. That does not imply the solution to that is to get out the shovels and start mining. Especially if you were supposed to remember to pack the shovels in the first place and didn't realize it until after touchdown.

My point is, that old plan we had for resources is most certainly not the right solution. It doesn't fit organically with the rest of the game, it requires you to remember to attach a bunch of single-purpose parts to a vessel (forgetting any of which would render a mission a complete failure), and really, that's just not how we want the game to play out.

I think this is the crux of the issue then. The resources plan being shelved is, by all means, a good thing. It wasn't any fun once we got down to it, so we're not losing anything that was worth keeping here. However, that does not mean there isn't a need (and budding plans) for more end-game activities. I'm just saying that old plan for resource mining wasn't it.

Cheers

[Rowsdower]

Hi, everyone.

Please feel free to continue your discussion in this thread.

Thanks!