Just what is the community to SQUAD?

[tntristan12]

What "different experiments?" Gathering up soil and observing goo? Look. I'm not saying grindy is a bad thing. Just that resources aren't any worse than gathering science points. They are both different means to an end, and not even the same end necessarily! We can and should have both, and if the devs are worried it won't be fun enough.. well they should let their consumer base decide for itself and then refine it from there.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

If you're going to different destinations and running different experiments, it's not grindy. For something to be grindy it needs to be repetitive; science in KSP is not repetitive, unless the player deliberately makes it so.

What exactly is the difference between running a Goo experiment in LKO or in Duna orbit? Than ask yourself: What exactly is the difference between mining resource A on the Mun and B on Minmus?

[PDCWolf]

What exactly is the difference between running a Goo experiment in LKO or in Duna orbit? What exactly is the difference between mining resource A on the Mun and B on Minmus?

You go to a planet, right click something, get goo, spam transmission or take the sample back to kerbin, YOU UNLOCKED A NEW PART

You go to a planet, set a mining operation, have a lot of stuff going on like bases, planes with airscoops, water refineries taking resources from oceans, launchers coming and going to ferry those resources (or just use them to refuel your ship and keep going). Those resources help you with life support, they also help you establish a solid base of reputation and funding (if those are ever implemented), and they give you something to do when you go to a planet. A reason to stay. They also provide a reason for multiple missions because as everything is now, you can do everything there's to do anywhere on the Kerbin system with a single launch.

The science system as it is now, doesn't even require you to leave Kerbin's SOI. With correct planing you can get everything just from kerbin and mun. On top of that, I don't really trust the new "fixes for science", I just don't have faith in them by now. Guess I'll have to see it with my own eyes.

[Eric S]

Even if they just included the plain Kethane mod as is, I think that would make a lot of people happy...

Is Kethane as is fun? I use it, and I'll say no. It enables me to do things differently, gives me more to do on planets, but other than that first detection of kethane, that first drill that started bringing up kethane, the answer is no, it's not fun or exciting. Find a way to enable the same functionality, but in a fun way, and you've got a real winner of an idea, and I think that's what Harvester's looking for. And being lazy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with failing to achieve this goal on the first attempt.

I'll use your own mindset against you. Who are you (or the devs) to tell me what's fun and what isn't?

Noone. I've got no more right to tell you what you consider fun than you do to tell the devs how to design their game.

I've got no problems with people that want to convince the devs to reconsider this decision. Where I draw the line is at people that rather than argue the merits of that decision make the argument that the devs are bad, unskilled, or otherwise defective just because the dev's goals and that person's goals aren't in perfect alignment.

I fail to see how adding *more* things to do when exploring other planets is a bad thing.

And I agree with you. In fact, if you read my posts on this in other areas, you'd know I'd prefer the resources they originally outlined over no resources at all. I've even said that this isn't the decision that I would have made. However, if the devs want to axe a feature because they don't think it's as fun as what they want their game to be, then I don't think that qualifies as lazy. And that was the whole point of that post, one that anyone that attacked the post based on wanting resources in game missed.

[LethalDose]

I only managed to catch the first wee bit of kerbal con on thursday... Could somebody explain to me why everyone is peeved off?

From what I gather, the mods have either canceled or suspended development of resources in favour of multiplayer. If this is true then so what? We have kethane, more credit to the modders. Besides, Anything more is a bonus

But if someone could clarify what is going on, that would be nice

Yes, we have kethane, which is a mod.

Mods are not substitutes for stock game play. They can be broken with single updates or other mods. It is not the community's responsibility to maintain the game code, it is the publisher's.

You can hear what HarvestR said at the closing ceremonies here, skip to about 12:00 to get right to the point. Personally, I can't understand some of the statements about the resource system, but you can watch it draw your own conclusions.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

You go to a planet, right click something, get goo, spam transmission or take the sample back to kerbin, YOU UNLOCKED A NEW PART

You go to a planet, set a mining operation, have a lot of stuff going on like bases, planes with airscoops, water refineries taking resources from oceans, launchers coming and going to ferry those resources (or just use them to refuel your ship and keep going). Those resources help you with life support, they also help you establish a solid base of reputation and funding (if those are ever implemented), and they give you something to do when you go to a planet. A reason to stay. They also provide a reason for multiple missions because as everything is now, you can do everything there's to do anywhere on the Kerbin system with a single launch.

The science system as it is now, doesn't even require you to leave Kerbin's SOI. With correct planing you can get everything just from kerbin and mun. On top of that, I don't really trust the new "fixes for science", I just don't have faith in them by now. Guess I'll have to see it with my own eyes.

I hope you realize you just answered a rhetorical question . I agree with you mostly, but I have confidence that the science spam has been dropped and also has been tweaked; hopefully that means Kerbin and the Mun won't be enough to complete the tech-tree.

[tntristan12]

And I agree with you. In fact, if you read my posts on this in other areas, you'd know I'd prefer the resources they originally outlined over no resources at all. I've even said that this isn't the decision that I would have made. However, if the devs want to axe a feature because they don't think it's as fun as what they want their game to be, then I don't think that qualifies as lazy. And that was the whole point of that post, one that anyone that attacked the post based on wanting resources in game missed.

I'd just like to point out that my post you quoted was not in reply to your own. I was just generally posting my feelings on the matter. Good that we're on the same page though.

[Eric S]

I'd just like to point out that my post you quoted was not in reply to your own. I was just generally posting my feelings on the matter. Good that we're on the same page though.

Sorry about that, I wanted to respond in agreement with you, multiquoted so that I wouldn't be multiposting, and then got into a bit of one-track thinking while replying to the other messages. So here I am posting again anyway.

[Bigcheecho]

I honestly have to wonder why SQUAD would assume that feature x isn't fun without asking the people that play the game. As far as I know, the closest thing we have to the "complicated" resource system SQUAD initially proposed is the Kethane mod, which is relatively less complex, and is one of the most popular mods in existence. My suggestion would be to do relatively the same thing the Minecraft devs do: provide "snapshots" of future plans for other updates to improve the feedback gained by the community. It'll be a win-win scenario: The community can provide first-hand feedback to the developers, in which the developers develop based of both their plans and what the community wants, thus making the game better, causing KSP's fanbase tell others about the game, producing more money for SQUAD. However, unlike Minecraft, I don't mind if the snapshots are provided irregularly, just give us something more to base our opinion on to provide feedback right from the source instead of having to rely on mods and developer-released images.

Finally, as a note to those who bring up the things we legally agreed to: Sure, SQUAD is not obliged to add feature x to the game, but that does not mean we can't ENCOURAGE them to add said feature to the game.

[vexx32]

Oh, trust me... Squad used to not bother with the QA testing and Experimentals... it was a massive firestorm. You don't want to be a part of what happens when people start things over incomplete features and so forth. *shudder*

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I honestly have to wonder why SQUAD would assume that feature x isn't fun without asking the people that play the game. As far as I know, the closest thing we have to the "complicated" resource system SQUAD initially proposed is the Kethane mod, which is relatively less complex, and is one of the most popular mods in existence. My suggestion would be to do relatively the same thing the Minecraft devs do: provide "snapshots" of future plans for other updates to improve the feedback gained by the community. It'll be a win-win scenario: The community can provide first-hand feedback to the developers, in which the developers develop based of both their plans and what the community wants, thus making the game better, causing KSP's fanbase tell others about the game, producing more money for SQUAD. However, unlike Minecraft, I don't mind if the snapshots are provided irregularly, just give us something more to base our opinion on to provide feedback right from the source instead of having to rely on mods and developer-released images.

Finally, as a note to those who bring up the things we legally agreed to: Sure, SQUAD is not obliged to add feature x to the game, but that does not mean we can't ENCOURAGE them to add said feature to the game.

Based on some of the posters here I don't know if I would want the unfiltered feedback of this community

[Tiberion]

I honestly have to wonder why SQUAD would assume that feature x isn't fun without asking the people that play the game. As far as I know, the closest thing we have to the "complicated" resource system SQUAD initially proposed is the Kethane mod, which is relatively less complex, and is one of the most popular mods in existence. My suggestion would be to do relatively the same thing the Minecraft devs do: provide "snapshots" of future plans for other updates to improve the feedback gained by the community. It'll be a win-win scenario: The community can provide first-hand feedback to the developers, in which the developers develop based of both their plans and what the community wants, thus making the game better, causing KSP's fanbase tell others about the game, producing more money for SQUAD. However, unlike Minecraft, I don't mind if the snapshots are provided irregularly, just give us something more to base our opinion on to provide feedback right from the source instead of having to rely on mods and developer-released images.

Finally, as a note to those who bring up the things we legally agreed to: Sure, SQUAD is not obliged to add feature x to the game, but that does not mean we can't ENCOURAGE them to add said feature to the game.

The sheer hubris it must take to think that ANY game developer should have to publish an unfinished system and let the playerbase decide whether its fun or not. Game developers have been designing, implementing (and sometimes cancelling) game systems for decades now, all on their little lonesome. The vast majority of games were finished, written onto discs and sealed in boxes before a 'player' ever got to decide if it was fun or not. And they still managed to make good games! Amazing!

You are taking your "role" in this game's development far too seriously. You are not the decision maker. Its not 'develop-by-committee' - despite many mis-informed people thinking that the Alpha-funding model of development is just that.

Even if this is Squad's 1st game, they are still professional game developers and they have designed a majority of the game's systems without having to get approval from you. You can offer feedback if and when they publish an update, and you can make well-thought out suggestions (if its not already on the list!) but throwing a forum-tantrum (not you specifically, but this entire mess in general) and demanding that you get to approve or disapprove of the system is frankly firmly in fantasy-land territory, and if this is something you really think should happen you need to take a few days off and collect yourself and come back with a more reasonable viewpoint.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Tiberion

[Bigcheecho]

The sheer hubris it must take to think that ANY game developer should have to publish an unfinished system and let the playerbase decide whether its fun or not. Game developers have been designing, implementing (and sometimes cancelling) game systems for decades now, all on their little lonesome. The vast majority of games were finished, written onto discs and sealed in boxes before a 'player' ever got to decide if it was fun or not. And they still managed to make good games! Amazing!

You are taking your "role" in this game's development far too seriously. You are not the decision maker. Its not 'develop-by-committee' - despite many mis-informed people thinking that the Alpha-funding model of development is just that.

Even if this is Squad's 1st game, they are still professional game developers and they have designed a majority of the game's systems without having to get approval from you. You can offer feedback if and when they publish an update, and you can make well-thought out suggestions (if its not already on the list!) but throwing a forum-tantrum (not you specifically, but this entire mess in general) and demanding that you get to approve or disapprove of the system is frankly firmly in fantasy-land territory, and if this is something you really think should happen you need to take a few days off and collect yourself and come back with a more reasonable viewpoint.

It is not required for players participate, it is not required for SQUAD to actually follow the feedback, nor is it presented as finished. It is simply a method for the community to improve the feedback they can give by being able to experience the feature first-hand, so that SQUAD has a better idea of how to improve the player's final experience. I can understand how you misinterpreted it, though, but I'm just insisting that SQUAD uses the "snapshots" system to give players an improved idea of any particular feature, allowing for an experience-based opinion instead of a prediction-based opinion.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Bigcheecho

[Stargate525]

The sheer hubris it must take to think that ANY game developer should have to publish an unfinished system and let the playerbase decide whether its fun or not.

This is what this thread was originally about. Are we a playerbase, or are we a massive pool of beta testers?

Game developers have been designing, implementing (and sometimes cancelling) game systems for decades now, all on their little lonesome. The vast majority of games were finished, written onto discs and sealed in boxes before a 'player' ever got to decide if it was fun or not. And they still managed to make good games! Amazing!

Yes, but what they HAVEN'T been doing is asking us to pay for it while they're still developing it. Since they are, they have NO product to show us except these betas and their eventual vision of the complete game. That is what they're selling us: the promised full version.

You are taking your "role" in this game's development far too seriously. You are not the decision maker. Its not 'develop-by-committee' - despite many mis-informed people thinking that the Alpha-funding model of development is just that.

So what are we, then? Can you honestly say that this game would exist without the playerbase having bought in from .13 onwards? In the past, this cost and risk was assumed by the publishers and game companies. Now, it's being assumed by us. Should we not get a little bit of the oversight that they enjoy?

Even if this is Squad's 1st game, they are still professional game developers and they have designed a majority of the game's systems without having to get approval from you. You can offer feedback if and when they publish an update, and you can make well-thought out suggestions (if its not already on the list!) but throwing a forum-tantrum (not you specifically, but this entire mess in general) and demanding that you get to approve or disapprove of the system is frankly firmly in fantasy-land territory, and if this is something you really think should happen you need to take a few days off and collect yourself and come back with a more reasonable viewpoint.

I don't think anyone is arguing for Squad to turn the game into an open-source democracy. We aren't demanding they get our approval, just explain themselves and what they're doing with our money.

[Kurtvw]

This is what this thread was originally about. Are we a playerbase, or are we a massive pool of beta testers?

Yes, but what they HAVEN'T been doing is asking us to pay for it while they're still developing it. Since they are, they have NO product to show us except these betas and their eventual vision of the complete game. That is what they're selling us: the promised full version.

But... You bought the FINAL release of the game at a steep discount because you were willing to buy early... Its not like they charged you $60 to do this. You knew the state of the game at the time of purchase, and you decided it was valuable enough for you.

Nobody said you were going to get a voice in dev for this product, all they said was we have this game, its not done yet, you can get in on it now at a discount... Or you can wait till its fully cooked and pay full price.

Nobody EVER granted you a seat in the board room. That's where all this pretentious -slosh- goes in the toilet. A bunch of gamers decided they were devs because a developer tried to share something cool with them.

Thats just wrong thinking, and really does nothing but degrade the process. This kind of thinking is going to make sure that in the future, devs (of all games, not just this one) stay hush till they have a finished product at which time they can charge you $60. And in the conventional model that it seems like we are supposed to hate, that $60 shelf price means you still bought the game 'as is' and aren't owed anything by the dev.

So, whats the point?

You got a good deal on a fun game, and you're not happy with that because the future isn't going like you hoped?

Edited December 16, 2013 by KasperVld

[Ernest3.14]

Personally, I can't understand some of the statements about the resource system, but you can watch it draw your own conclusions.

This. We may just be overreacting.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

you're not happy with that because the future isn't going like you hoped?

well.. duh?

[FITorion]

"That version of resources wasn't fun. We canned it and will work on a different better version." is what I want to hear.

I don't want to hear:

We are never adding resources to KSP.

We might add them with an expansion.

If we do anything it will be after we're done with Multiplayer.

None of that.

Resource mining is a must for KSP. They are completely within scope and in fact a pillar of Tycoon style gaming as they call it. I'm fine with them being delayed for the final update of Career before they start Multiplayer. They should not be delayed past that. I trust that they can find a way to make it fun. I am annoyed that they gave up. Try again and try harder this time. Don't come back until you've succeeded.

[Tiberion]

I don't think anyone is arguing for Squad to turn the game into an open-source democracy. We aren't demanding they get our approval, just explain themselves and what they're doing with our money.

I don't think the 1st half of your statement jives with the 2nd half. Nor does the 1st half of the 2nd statement jive with the 2nd half of that.

I answered the "what are we?" question like 20 pages of roaring indignation ago. We're customers and players and fans and community members, and we give feedback. The feedback has been given now, for over 48 hours, in the most annoying possible manner.

We are not: bugtesters, decision-makers, or game designers. It would be physically impossible for them to present each gamedesign decision in a way that results in a clear "yea or nea" consensus (because there isn't one, not even on this subject)

As an added bonus, simply because Squad happens to be run by decent humans who like the community, they are very open with their development and very often do put up posts about why they did something and might even engage in some discussion with the community. That doesn't mean they 'owe' explanations every time, for everything you might not like.

And it most certainly does not excuse the vitriol and outlandish accusations that have been rambling around this place over the last two days.

At this point you can either relax and wait for Monday or Tuesday for the added details they said were forthcoming... or you can continue to bounce off the walls.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Tiberion

[Vanamonde]

The KSP devs weren't always like this, long ago before 0.19 they actually gave us completed features and stuck with their original plan.

Their original plan didn't include aircraft parts, the runway, and many other features. Plans change. I dislike this one, but it won't be the last, and I don't hate Squad because of it.

0.19 was the update in which the developers officially stopped delivering content.

Hyperbolic statements like this just confuse matters. They said they've introduced most of the game's major aspects and are concentrating on improving existing features. Since then they've added career mode, the science system, and there are at least 2 new parts planned for .23 (sabre engines and the science lab). Content is still coming, even if it isn't the current focus.

IMO, even "simply spouting hate" can be useful criticism if you look at what the hate is being spouted over.

As I recall, you took a much dimmer view of hate-spouting when you were on the other end of it. Insults never help make a point or persuade anyone. Did it change your mind when it was aimed at you?

Finally, as a note to those who bring up the things we legally agreed to: Sure, SQUAD is not obliged to add feature x to the game, but that does not mean we can't ENCOURAGE them to add said feature to the game.

"Encouraging" them is one thing. Throwing insults at them and accusing them of fraud is somewhat less than encouraging.

[NovaSilisko]

As I recall, you took a much dimmer view of hate-spouting when you were on the other end of it. Insults never help make a point or persuade anyone. Did it change your mind when it was aimed at you?

For me, it's more in hindsight I suppose. I'll definitely agree that sometimes the reactions can be a bit... hyperbolic, to put it gently. And I won't argue the fact that it's often painful (and generally annoying) to have it directed at you, but, that doesn't mean it can't be useful to a degree. It gives you a place to look, and a general idea of what some are unhappy about, even if it's not exactly presented nicely or clearly by most of the unhappy people.

[Stargate525]

But... You bought the FINAL release of the game at a steep discount because you were willing to buy early... Its not like they charged you $60 to do this. You knew the state of the game at the time of purchase, and you decided it was valuable enough for you.

You're right, I'm not paying 60$. But I haven't paid 60$ for a non-AAA game in years. That is simply not the price point for this game at all, even in a finished state. I paid nineteen, if I recall rightly, which is on par with other similar games that ARE complete. I knew the state of the game, but I also knew that this was constantly being updated, to turn into:

'a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space.'

That is their own statement on the front page. You're telling me that I and other purchasers don't have any right to decide whether they have fulfilled that or not?

Nobody said you were going to get a voice in dev for this product, all they said was we have this game, its not done yet, you can get in on it now at a discount... Or you can wait till its fully cooked and pay full price.

I'm not 'in on' anything. That would imply I have some sort of development control. Which I don't have. What I think they said was 'we have this game concept, and this proof of concept beta. We take your money to help get it finished, and you get access to our development betas.'

Nobody EVER granted you a seat in the board room. That's where all this pretentious B.S. goes in the toilet. A bunch of gamers decided they were devs because a developer tried to share something cool with them.

Funny, I'm not calling your opinion pretentious B.S. Please try not to sling mud. I. Am. Not. ASKING. For. A. Boardroom. Seat. I am asking who the devs are accountable to, if not the community that has funded them these past two years?

Thats just wrong thinking, and really does nothing but degrade the process. This kind of thinking is going to make sure that in the future, devs (of all games, not just this one) stay hush till they have a finished product at which time they can charge you $60. And in the conventional model that it seems like we are supposed to hate, that $60 shelf price means you still bought the game 'as is' and aren't owed anything by the dev.

So we go back to the status quo of every other consumer industry. I'm confused why you think we're supposed to hate that. After all, they seem to have an excellent track record.

So, whats the point?

You got a good deal on a fun game, and you're not happy with that because the future isn't going like you hoped?

There's a difference between 'not happy' and 'could be happier.' I'm looking forward to .23, and I will, no doubt, keep playing this game. What I'm primarily sick of is this notion that despite having contributed materially to this game's development, the community is supposed to simply sit down and shut up and ride along.

I don't think the 1st half of your statement jives with the 2nd half. Nor does the 1st half of the 2nd statement jive with the 2nd half of that.

Fair enough. I'll try to explain it better.

I don't think that they need to make every dev decision a popular vote. Nor do I think that they can take money on a beta product, ignore feedback, and produce whatever they want at a whim.

I do not think we are at either of those extremes. I don't expect to agree with all of their decisions, but I do expect to at least see a rationale. I'm more than happy to wait for said thing. What I'm primarily trying to do is make the case that that expectation is actually something I can be expected to... expect.

I answered the "what are we?" question like 20 pages of roaring indignation ago. We're customers and players and fans and community members, and we give feedback. The feedback has been given now, for over 48 hours, in the most annoying possible manner.

I have no argument with this. This was not supposed to be a multiplayer/resources thread, as you know. I am trying to jive the idea of pre-paying for an in-development game with any other form of consumer market, and whether we have any authority, as consumers, do decide whether promises are made or implied in a pre-purchase like this.

Since the investment analogy clearly blew up in my face, I'll try another one. Let's say we bought a sofa from a furniture maker, a new style they hadn't done before, and have no floor models of (a game concept). They've showed us the framework and their facilities to prove they can actually make furniture (the beta and demo). They offer us a discount if we buy now, and as a bonus we get to watch them make the sofa (play said demos).

Now, assuming that that analogy holds. Do we have the option, as the buyers of that sofa, to point out that this sofa is beginning to look awfully like a dining room table, complain that they seem to have left out the left arm of the sofa, or should we be content when other buyers say to us 'well, they never really PROMISED you a sofa, you know...'

We are not: bugtesters, decision-makers, or game designers. It would be physically impossible for them to present each gamedesign decision in a way that results in a clear "yea or nea" consensus (because there isn't one, not even on this subject)

I'm not asking that they do.

At this point you can either relax and wait for Monday or Tuesday for the added details they said were forthcoming.

[Vanamonde]

Note: Some of these threads are overlapping, and have been merged. Please carry on with the discussion.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Vanamonde

[Crush]

Lesson learned for the development team: Communicate less. The less the players know about upcomming features, the less they have to whine about when their expectations aren't fulfilled.

[PDCWolf]

Lesson learned for the development team: Communicate less. The less the players know about upcomming features, the less they have to whine about when their expectations aren't fulfilled.

I like how you ignored everything said until now and suggested the worst possible course of action without any backup to it.