Resources - postponed, cancelled or reserved for a DLC?

[sal_vager]

People were not asking for resource mining in anything like the numbers they were asking for multiplayer before resources were first revealed, it was a big surprise to everyone at the time, but multiplayer was asked for since the at least .13

It'd be best to have both of course, there's no reason it should be one or the other but this is not how you are going to convince Squad to reconsider it.

[OtherDalfite]

You don't know that it's been swapped out. Correlation != causation.

Considering multiplayer has been taken out of the trash can and put up for development, and resources have been placed in the trash can, I would say that it's definitely a swap out.

[Themohawkninja]

Just a rebalance, nothing new really.

... and tweakables, and some new characteristics of parts (like turning landing gear), and a hybrid engine, and new science mechanics.

[Themohawkninja]

Considering multiplayer has been taken out of the trash can and put up for development, and resources have been placed in the trash can, I would say that it's definitely a swap out.

That's just a correlation though. It very well could be a coincidence.

[OtherDalfite]

People were not asking for resource mining in anything like the numbers they were asking for multiplayer before resources were first revealed, it was a big surprise to everyone at the time, but multiplayer was asked for since the at least .13

It'd be best to have both of course, there's no reason it should be one or the other but this is not how you are going to convince Squad to reconsider it.

Well, since resources have been announced to be cancelled and multiplayer to be up next for the big development subject, many people have been complaining. I know you can't stand it either Sal, you were here from the beginning. It must be pretty sad to see KSP go this way, especially from a moderator's standpoint where you can't really post your true opinion for fear of getting fired.

[Stargate525]

Nope, sorry. Early access lets you play the game, but your ability to personally influence design decisions is pretty much zilch. The community has control over what it creates through the modding system, the core game is controlled by the dev team. I'm sure they like to listen to constructive feedback, but you're never going to get access to their internal processes.

Bull. I didn't buy early access, I bought ALPHA access. An Alpha is being tested, revised, and changed. It is an assumption that I as a player and tester of their incomplete and broken content (at least relative to the 1.0 version) will be able to influence ongoing changes in at least a small way. I am NOT a regular customer, nor is anyone else who currently owns KSP. You are not purchasing a product so much as investing in one. We are paying a reduced price in exchange for the future product, to allow that product to be made.

We are not consumers, we are investors. It is of utmost importance that we protect our investment, and fight when we feel it is being driven into the ground.

[OtherDalfite]

That's just a correlation though. It very well could be a coincidence.

That could be true for anything by that logic. Stop playing strawmans please.

[Seret]

Considering multiplayer has been taken out of the trash can and put up for development, and resources have been placed in the trash can, I would say that it's definitely a swap out.

Based on what evidence? Just the timing of the announcement? It was a PR event, they made lots of announcements.

[Themohawkninja]

That could be true for anything by that logic. Stop playing strawmans please.

I'm not straw manning anything.

[sal_vager]

We hear nothing on resources for ages, suggesting this decision had been taken some time ago, then the KMP project recently with Squad deciding it is feasible after all.

That strongly suggests these events are not linked.

[OtherDalfite]

Based on what evidence? Just the timing of the announcement? It was a PR event, they made lots of announcements.

The evidence that they said KSP resources were on the backburner permanently and that multiplayer was now top of the development thing. Why would they announce the two together and not make it seem like they were being swapped out? That's one hell of a coincidence, which it isn't.

We hear nothing on resources for ages, suggesting this decision had been taken some time ago, then the KMP project recently with Squad deciding it is feasible after all.

That strongly suggests these events are not linked.

So much for transparency huh? What about that new PR model that squad talked about last year. Hell, KerbalCon 2 was all about resources, and for Kerbalcon 3 they are being taken away?

[Seret]

It is an assumption that I as a player and tester of their incomplete and broken content (at least relative to the 1.0 version) will be able to influence ongoing changes in at least a small way.

The main useful contribution you make to an alpha game is surfacing bugs. Don't underestimate that: it's a useful contribution, especially if you're on a minority platform. I'd be careful of imagining you have any degree of influence over design decisions.

KSP is not an open source project, and even within open source projects they generally operate as a meritocracies. Only those that contribute code (or equivalent tangible contributions such as translation) actually get to make decisions about the project. Users don't really get to influence the project. The main payoff for testing open source or early access software is that you ensure that your hardware and software environment is well-supported in the final release.

[OtherDalfite]

Only those that contribute code (or equivalent tangible contributions such as translation) actually get to make decisions about the project. Users don't really get to influence the project. The main payoff for testing open source or early access software is that you ensure that your hardware and software environment is well-supported in the final release.

So mod developers, yes? They have greatly introduced new developments to KSP. Only an update after a docking mod was developed was 0.18 a dedicated docking update. The same for now but with multiplayer.

[Seret]

Why would they announce the two together

Because it was an event where they made lots of announcements. Did they also bin resources so they could implement tweakables? Or SABREs?

Did the absence of resources from 0.19, 0.20, 0.21, 0.22, and 0.23 not give you a wee hint that all has not been well in resourceland for some time?

[OtherDalfite]

Because it was an event where they made lots of announcements. Did they also bin resources so they could implement tweakables? Or SABREs?

Did the absence of resources from 0.19, 0.20, 0.21, 0.22, and 0.23 not give you a wee hint that all has not been well in resourceland for some time?

The thing is, why did squad not tell us? They tried to silence us with multiplayer but snuffed out resources in the process. Maybe it was a big PR thing in the event they tried to cover up resources being canned while multiplayer was up next. I'm aware of resources not being touched up on during that time, and it's for the reason everyone is complaining now that they waited for a big feature like multiplayer to be announced so the whiplash isn't as bad from cancelling one the biggest developments for KSP to ever be created. It seems resources were sent on a mystery cruise from 0.19 to now, and they've just now announced why. There is no reason as to why they waited until now that they announced except for the fact that they were afraid of the community's reaction to it.

[PDCWolf]

Guys, saying that "resources was canned long ago because nothing was said about it" really doesn't make any sense. Even more, it was the only thing some of us had faith into, that they were working on it behind the scenes.

Hell, they even worked on the thing up to a point they could say "it's not fun", just imagine how much work that is. They should have been working on it until very recent times.

Not saying the two events are linked, but you can't say that there isn't flip-flopping and bad communication either.

[Seret]

So mod developers, yes? They have greatly introduced new developments to KSP. Only an update after a docking mod was developed was 0.18 a dedicated docking update. The same for now but with multiplayer.

Yep, absolutely. Developing a super-popular mod will definitely give your voice weight. Just playing the game, not so much.

However, remember that the core game isn't community-developed. If Squad want to make an unpopular decision nobody can stop them.

[OtherDalfite]

Yep, absolutely. Developing a super-popular mod will definitely give your voice weight. Just playing the game, not so much.

However, remember that the core game isn't community-developed. If Squad want to make an unpopular decision nobody can stop them.

You keep using the term community developed when we already established that it isn't. It's community led, not developed.

[Seret]

You keep using the term community developed when we already established that it isn't. It's community led, not developed.

It's not community-led either. The community has pretty good access to the devs, and can try and influence them, but ultimate the devs will do what they consider best.

[OtherDalfite]

It's not community-led either. The community has pretty good access to the devs, and can try and influence them, but ultimate the devs will do what they consider best.

Kethane, C7, ORDA, and many other mods have directly influenced KSP. KMP is just the next one in line.

[Stargate525]

The main useful contribution you make to an alpha game is surfacing bugs. Don't underestimate that: it's a useful contribution, especially if you're on a minority platform. I'd be careful of imagining you have any degree of influence over design decisions.

KSP is not an open source project, and even within open source projects they generally operate as a meritocracies. Only those that contribute code (or equivalent tangible contributions such as translation) actually get to make decisions about the project. Users don't really get to influence the project. The main payoff for testing open source or early access software is that you ensure that your hardware and software environment is well-supported in the final release.

I'm not imagining anything. Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm also not saying that the game is open source. What I AM saying is that we all have placed stock into this game. We bought the game on the promise of a 1.0; getting to play it in the meanwhile is a bonus. But, because we can play it, we can see where it is going and - as a group - pull the direction it heads.

The short of it is that by canning resources, by not being communicative with their current player base, they are breaking their end of the bargain. This style of purchase is much closer to a service than it is to a standard transaction. Imagine that they had started a kickstarter, with all their promises about resources and such in the advert blurb. People are buying their game based not on what's in it, but what they say will be in it, and the promise that their purchase now gets to help make that happen. Saying these things and not delivering them (EVEN FOR ALPHA CONSUMPTION) is at best dishonest and at worst fraudulent.

It's not community-led either. The community has pretty good access to the devs, and can try and influence them, but ultimate the devs will do what they consider best.

They have let us in on their game as they are developing it. To think that we won't look over their shoulders and tell them when we think they've messed up is the height of folly.

[FEichinger]

Hello there

Guys, as much as I appreciate constructive discussion about that particular topic, this thread is not at all about whether or not Squad owes anyone anything, and who is to influence what decisions - please take that to a single, detailed thread of its own, preferably with all these thoughts you have right now collided into a big post.

FEichinger

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Let's take a deep breath everyone and cool down a bit

Hello there

Guys, as much as I appreciate constructive discussion about that particular topic, this thread is not at all about whether or not Squad owes anyone anything, and who is to influence what decisions - please take that to a single, detailed thread of its own, preferably with all these thoughts you have right now collided into a big post.

FEichinger

I disagree, the concepts of influence and "owing" is kind of directly related to what these decisions mean to the community and the community deserves to hash them out. No one is obnoxiously derailing the thread of with these discussions, rather, it is informed by them.

[OtherDalfite]

Let's take a deep breath everyone and cool down a bit

I disagree, the concepts of influence and "owing" is kind of directly related to what these decisions mean to the community and the community deserves to hash them out. No one is obnoxiously derailing the thread of with these discussions, rather, it is informed by them.

Yeah sorry FEIchinger, I have to agree with this as well. This is a broad discussion, and many things, including our ability to influence the game by being investors, is part of it.

[FEichinger]

And I told you, you can make a detailed thread about that very topic by itself - absolutely nothing standing in your way there. But hashing it out in here is getting far, far away from the original topic: the delay with resources. This is my last warning on this.

FEichinger