Just what is the community to SQUAD?

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Much appreciated! I'll skim through. I can speed read. Give me a couple.

I think it was around page 8

[Kurtvw]

Please do not simply dismiss someone's argument just because their idea is different then yours. He made the thread because FEI told him to.

?? Didn't dismiss, ASKED is what I did. Sorry I'm not on top of all the threads currently burning...

[ZedNova]

I like Squad, and i like the game and what they're doing with it.

Therefore i could care less about their internal affairs, or what they think of us, as long as they get everything done at the end of the day.

[Kurtvw]

Let me re-iterate, I am not ACCUSING them of doing any of those in this thread, regardless of whether I think that they have or not.

That is the most wicked cop-out I've seen in a really long time....

basically "what I think privately is not up for discussion, but here it is anyhow, oh, and its exactly what you probably thought..."

nice

Edited December 15, 2013 by Kurtvw

[EdCase]

You do realize that this is being dev'd by a group of dudes that thought it'd be cool, right? Not a group of dudes that works for Microsoft.

Yes, they are making some money, but I doubt very much that any of these guys is getting rich. They are doing this as best as they can.

Indeed I realise that. Many others thought it also including those spending money on it. The problem doesn't stem from changes in the "plan". Nope, it stems from what appears to be changes in the philosophy which massively contradict the original "cool" idea in favor of a uptick in short-term interest. Multiplayer will always generate "buzz" outside the existing users

Incidentally if it involves taking payment then arguing they are doing the best they can is redundant. If they were doing otherwise that would portray them as dishonest, which they are not. They are however desperately in need of public relations training.

[Kurtvw]

This discussion is fast leaving the SOI of sanity... So I'm stepping off.

"I bought a game that never promised me anything beyond the state it was in when I bought it, but now I'm mad because they aren't making the game I WANT..."

You kids...

Gnite.

[Stargate525]

That is the most wicked cop-out I've seen in a really long time....

...Alright, fine.

Personally, I want resources in the game. I'm disappointed that they aren't being added (if they aren't, which I'm also finding more and more unlikely), and believe that I have every right to make that opinion heard to the devs until they make an acknowledgement. I also find their announcement of multiplayer so soon after a mod finally gets it to work, and that they first announced it on PCgamer to be suspicious. IF they have abandoned resources in favor of multiplayer, I consider that a betrayal of the tacit promises made in their dev logs regarding the direction of this game.

The ONLY thing of the above that's relevant here in this thread it the second half of the second sentence. Namely, do I have that right?

[Whackjob]

I think it was around page 8

Found it. Apparently the sole source of information that the resource system has been shelved was given by Feichinger. I do not know for certain what his title is and what his connection is, but my impression is he's an international community manager? I do not believe he is a developer. That being said, it's entirely possible that I am wrong. Feel free to correct me.

So what this appears to be is information from a second-hand source, colored by his feelings regarding the topic. People in general have a tendency to embellish things, particularly when arguing in favor or against something, under the premise that said embellishment will help sway others to their side of the argument. We all do it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm sure there's something to this, but I wouldn't put a high veracity value on the specifics. I will remain skeptical and patient. Let's see what shakes out.

And on the community and the dev side of the house, I'm supremely skeptical about the premise that they don't know about our preferences and don't care. Remember, this is something they've wanted to do since kids. I doubt they'd knock down the KSP shed with us in it for the sake of a few yuks.

[Tiberion]

I started it to get it off the resources thread, and to get a clear answer on what we are to Squad. No riot intended.

We are the players, and the customers. We also have the privileged to play the game as it is developed. We're not 'bugtesters' because they have several groups of people for that, paid and unpaid. They do look at publicly submitted bugs, but not before they're curated by the other groups (because there would be way too many, with too many of them being terribly not useful)

We're the community around the game. We're fans. We help spread the word. We add cool things via mods and plugins and artwork and writing and movies and music and whatever else. We also provide a LOT of feedback. On the forums, on twitch and twitter, on reddit and all over the Internet. And for every 10 people who agree with you on one thing, 11 more disagree, and the 10 people that agreed before won't on the next thing. There is NO consensus, and there is no way that Squad can 'look to us' to make any decisions. We owe it to them and ourselves to curate our feedback so its useful and constructive, and hope that its more compelling than the viewpoint of the people who do not agree with you. We also trust that the people that made this game we all love know what they're doing, and we respect them. We don't bash them when we disagree with a decision and claim they're ruining things.

We're contributors, but we're not the decision makers, and as individuals we're not important. Those of us who have been here since 2011 aren't more important than the guy who bought the game today. As a group, as a whole community we ARE important because we support the game. But we aren't bigger than the game.

I'm not saying they are. I'm wondering why when a group is trying to give their input, they're labelled as trolls and bickerers and malcontents.

It is the way the message was delivered. When you are negative, accusatory or demanding, you're going to get negativity back in return, its just the way things work. I'm not saying you specifically are, but I would suggest you go back and read some of the... passion you have written some things with and consider if its positive or constructive, and then reconsider why people might not like the tone of it.

I'm glad you think me capable of such cat-stroking evil, but I'm not. My honest intent is in the very first post. What people see their role in KSP is, how big our dissent or suggestions should influence the game, and whether we as a community have any right to call them on flip-flopping, pandering, or breaking the vision of the game they have sold us in their dev reports.

if that is the root of the matter, then let me clear that up for you. You don't have the right to call them on any of that stuff. Its not helpful, its abusive and mostly its entirely subjective and sometimes not true. If there are 100 people who think its pandering, there is 100 who agree with the decision and would make the same argument you do if the opposite decision was made.

If you ever find yourself in the position where you need to make negative posts about the actual development practices of the company, you are out of bounds, it is not within your rights as a customer to make policy within the company. You bought a game, and not stock.

Let me re-iterate, I am not ACCUSING them of doing any of those in this thread, regardless of whether I think that they have or not.

I am sure you think that, but it really isn't coming across that way. Honestly, its been very negative and unhelpful.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Tiberion

[Stargate525]

Found it. Apparently the sole source of information that the resource system has been shelved was given by Feichinger. I do not know for certain what his title is and what his connection is, but my impression is he's an international community manager? I do not believe he is a developer. That being said, it's entirely possible that I am wrong. Feel free to correct me.

So what this appears to be is information from a second-hand source, colored by his feelings regarding the topic. People in general have a tendency to embellish things, particularly when arguing in favor or against something, under the premise that said embellishment will help sway others to their side of the argument. We all do it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm sure there's something to this, but I wouldn't put a high veracity value on the specifics. I will remain skeptical and patient. Let's see what shakes out.

And on the community and the dev side of the house, I'm supremely skeptical about the premise that they don't know about our preferences and don't care. Remember, this is something they've wanted to do since kids. I doubt they'd knock down the KSP shed with us in it for the sake of a few yuks.

And listening to the video that was linked here (I admit the only thing I watched of the Kon was Kurt), I didn't see anything that says that resources aren't in the 'once we finish career mode.' I'm with you 100%, and still curious whether the initial gut feeling I had of a betrayal was justified or not, assuming that what it was caused by is true.

[SkyRender]

Found it. Apparently the sole source of information that the resource system has been shelved was given by Feichinger. I do not know for certain what his title is and what his connection is, but my impression is he's an international community manager? I do not believe he is a developer. That being said, it's entirely possible that I am wrong. Feel free to correct me.

So what this appears to be is information from a second-hand source, colored by his feelings regarding the topic. People in general have a tendency to embellish things, particularly when arguing in favor or against something, under the premise that said embellishment will help sway others to their side of the argument. We all do it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm sure there's something to this, but I wouldn't put a high veracity value on the specifics. I will remain skeptical and patient. Let's see what shakes out.

And on the community and the dev side of the house, I'm supremely skeptical about the premise that they don't know about our preferences and don't care. Remember, this is something they've wanted to do since kids. I doubt they'd knock down the KSP shed with us in it for the sake of a few yuks.

I'm glad we agree on that front. The announcement at the end of KerbalKon was given in something of a hurry, was easy to interpret in a negative light (and it was), but we honestly don't have enough information to say for sure one way or another. We just know what it looks like, and what it looks like to many of the long-time fans who have anticipated expanded resources since 0.19 is "SQUAD is not going to give us what they promised us". That's at the root of much of the upset, I believe: not that a feature which has been repeatedly delayed appears to be canceled, but that it seems like a betrayal to a promise made long ago to the community to some.

[stupid_chris]

Guys the announcement is here, by Felipe himself. http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/b/487174346

What he says is that resources were overly complex and "top heavy" and demanded too much resourcres to develop (pun intended). Switch to 12mins to know the full story.

[LethalDose]

Guys the announcement is here, by Felipe himself. http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/b/487174346

What he says is that resources were overly complex and "top heavy" and demanded too much resourcres to develop (pun intended). Switch to 12mins to know the full story.

THANK YOU for linking this!

[Stargate525]

If you ever find yourself in the position where you need to make negative posts about the actual development practices of the company, you are out of bounds, it is not within your rights as a customer to make policy within the company. You bought a game, and not stock.

I'm not trying to make policy, I'm disagreeing with a decision and saying so, hoping that I'll be heard.

I am sure you think that, but it really isn't coming across that way. Honestly, its been very negative and unhelpful.

Then in that case I'll shut up.

How should I have gone about it?

[Sandworm]

Guys the announcement is here, by Felipe himself. http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/b/487174346

What he says is that resources were overly complex and "top heavy" and demanded too much resourcres to develop (pun intended). Switch to 12mins to know the full story.

I don't know what planet Felipe is from some times. "Resources" do not require much of anything. Here it is.... If you are in biome X, then when you activate a drill part you get a specific resources. For example, if you are in a mun crater or on Minmus your drill yields water. Done. One part, one resource definition. Ok TWO parts if you include another part to split the water into ox/fuel. There is no massive overhead. There is not complex code. By linking resources to the existing biome system, they don't even need to go so far Kethane in terms of overhead.

Complexity is not what is standing in the way. Squad's scatterbrained approach (that ridiculous flow chart) is the real issue.

[Whackjob]

Guys the announcement is here, by Felipe himself. http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/b/487174346

What he says is that resources were overly complex and "top heavy" and demanded too much resourcres to develop (pun intended). Switch to 12mins to know the full story.

Ok. But wouldn't this statement also be consistent with the intent to focus on other things, until the time and manpower is made available to redo and streamline resource collection and processing?

I'm still not willing to write it off completely. I suppose the quickest way to put this matter to bed would be to get a direct dev statement. If we could chase one down and threaten to shave his eyebrows or something.

[The Dulas]

Maybe they are right. I gave up on other space based because of the constant and endless need to mine and refine resources. It was like saving up money in order to buy a bigger jar to keep your money in. I just hope that what steps in the resource place is worth it. SQUAD has yet to let me down, so I am optimistic.

[Bigcheecho]

My two cents on this is that multiplayer should be added to KSP, but it is not a priority, unlike resources. The problem with me not taking a more specific stance is the apparent lack of information we currently have. (I haven't seen the video yet, as I am using an iPhone).

We need to hear more from Squad.

[Tiberion]

I'm not trying to make policy, I'm disagreeing with a decision and saying so, hoping that I'll be heard.

Then in that case I'll shut up.

How should I have gone about it?

Sorry, I didn't mean to single you out specifically, you were just asking the right questions all in one spot.

I would say that one detailed post in one of the threads asking about the 'new' status of resources, adding your interest in more details on what the actual plans going forward are. No need to go into specifics on how the announcements were handled or how the game is developed or any of that.

And then patience, until at least Monday when they all have a chance to regroup from what was not only a 48 hour live event, but a big meeting/party for people who normally work thousands of miles apart. Give them time to catch up and make a proper update, and realize that when they make impromptu announcements on a stream like that, it shouldn't be over-analyzed and focused on and ripped apart.

Because every time a 'live communication' is jumped on and treated so harshly, it just means we're less likely to see them, and more and more communication will come out as a Press release or a blog post from a second or third hand source, and we'll get even less interaction with the devs.

And that is something no one should be happy about.

[stupid_chris]

I don't know what planet Felipe is from some times. "Resources" do not require much of anything. Here it is.... If you are in biome X, then when you activate a drill part you get a specific resources. For example, if you are in a mun crater or on Minmus your drill yields water. Done. One part, one resource definition. Ok TWO parts if you include another part to split the water into ox/fuel. There is no massive overhead. There is not complex code. By linking resources to the existing biome system, they don't even need to go so far Kethane in terms of overhead.

Complexity is not what is standing in the way. Squad's scatterbrained approach (that ridiculous flow chart) is the real issue.

I extremely doubt this is as easy as it seems. Coming with a complete and good resource system without hacing it too dumbed down is not easy, and it involves an extrmemly large amount of code and work. I'm undertaking a replacement project with a few other people for stock resources, and I can barely imagine the amount of work we would have in front of us.

[Guest]

Sometimes truth hurts. Even if someone says something that may not be entirely true, it may have been true to them. I have come to understand this a little more in the past few years. I think it is good to let people express themselves freely. I would rather have brutal honest truth as opposed to overly sweetened kool-aid. It is ultimately my responsibility to confirm facts and face truth.

Everyone should keep in mind that you should not take anything said here too seriously. It is just a discussion about a game. I think it's obvious from the kerbalkon closing ceremonies that HarvesteR cares deeply about what the community thinks of his game and is doing his best to satisfy everyone. This may actually be a bad thing. After watching that, I for one am willing to cut the guys some slack. They are trying to listen to what everyone wants and make the best game possible.

[LethalDose]

I just watched it. And I have to agree with Sandworm: what's coming out of HarvestR's mouth doesn't make a lot of sense.

• He says the future purpose of resources is fixing stuff in-flight apollo 13 style (Yes, that's what he said)...
  
• I thought it was clear they didn't want random failures/damage, which was what happened in Apollo 13.
  
• In-flight repair IS NOT the "cool part" of resources.
  
• He complains about unrealistic expectations from the community due to poor communication, but only addressed resources at the end of the kon when tons of people are asking about it?
  
• And if he's so upset with that chart, why did they release it to the press before they had worked out the problems. That's nuts!
  

Seriously, Felipe started Kerbal-Kon's first event, in which he was supposed to talk about 0.23's implemented features, by showing up without a list of 0.23's implemented features and ends it with this nonsense? I'm really losing faith in SQUAD's ability to get the project off the ground.

I guess the plus side of this is that he said resources aren't permanently canceled, but really back to the drawing board. I wish I could have seen this earlier.

[SkyRender]

I've been watching Extra Credits recently, and

seems very relevant to this discussion, even if it's not immediately obvious. Around the middle, they start talking about how hard it is for a producer to have to axe a feature, and it really strikes a chord in regards to this discussion for me.

[Liowen]

I just watched it. And I have to agree with Sandworm: what's coming out of HarvestR's mouth doesn't make a lot of sense.

• He says the future purpose of resources is fixing stuff in-flight apollo 13 style (Yes, that's what he said)...
  
• I thought it was clear they didn't want random failures/damage, which was what happened in Apollo 13.
  
• In-flight repair IS NOT the "cool part" of resources.
  
• He complains about unrealistic expectations from the community due to poor communication, but only addressed resources at the end of the kon when tons of people are asking about it?
  
• And if he's so upset with that chart, why did they release it to the press before they had worked out the problems. That's nuts!
  

Seriously, Felipe started Kerbal-Kon's first event, in which he was supposed to talk about 0.23's implemented features, by showing up without a list of 0.23's implemented features and ends it with this nonsense? I'm really losing faith in SQUAD's ability to get the project off the ground.

I guess the plus side of this is that he said resources aren't permanently canceled, but really back to the drawing board. I wish I could have seen this earlier.

I think the use of Apollo 13 may have a poor choice of words, however post launch repairs would be nice still. Say you launch and have something break off mid flight that is not needed until the flight is in orbit (IE maybe an tug's thruster breaks off). Right now you can either revert flight or try to do your mission without said item, but doing this route you could have a repair made in flight if need be. Maybe the use of the thruster might be excessive, but I think the point is still valid, and this is just how I viewed anyways I could be right or I could be wrong.

[thorfinn]

You know what the problem really is, for me? I just don't believe they can make multiplayer work. Not in a reasonable amount of time, not with the mess they have made while working on simpler features. This project has gone too far to allow a refit of this magnitude.... it's what they have been saying all the time for almost two years, right? Then they see the kludge that is KMP, and suddenly multiplayer is feasible? They will lose loads of time that would be better spent on.... well, pretty much anything else, really.

And if the problem is that they must concentrate on new players, I just want to say that I'm ready to waive my right to free updates as an early adopter. If you really need more money to develop ISRU, good aerodynamics, automation et cetera, just say it and make it into an expansion pack. I'll buy it. I think many more would.

Edited December 15, 2013 by thorfinn