Just what is the community to SQUAD?

[MasterGir]

If they want to keep and expand their userbase I think it'd be wise to not alienate or ignore them. It's really as simple as that. They don't need to take everything we say to heart but if the majority of their userbase disagrees with a decision then it was probably a bad decision.

[EdCase]

This thread is good proof that parents today don't spank hard enough or often enough.

Dear self entitled little man - YOU DIDN'T WRITE THIS PROGRAM. And you are not the one with the long term vision of where it is going. Listening to a community, and turning over the development to the community are VERY different things.

The fact that Squad listens to the "community" at all is far superior to lets say... hmm, I dunno, lets go with Electronic Arts? Would you prefer them running this?

Just because YOUR personal opinion of the optimal dev path for a game is not the same as the developer does not mean they don't hear you. Don't be a crybaby squid just because your favorite shiny thing isn't in the next build... They'll get to it.

Your second paragraph is not relevant. It seems readily apparent there is no development path (optimal or otherwise) in place. The huge turnarounds (No multiplayer, don't even ask.....oh ok multiplayer is in now. Look at this resource map and drill models to get them...coming soon.....wait resources are not happening) demonstrate this clearly.

A clear plan would negate these issues. Massive "sea changes" and scattershot approaches do not.

[MasterGir]

Let us prove that we are the great community we're often lauded to be, and take this new development maturely. The community, to SQUAD, is everyone who plays KSP, not just the most vocal players. And we, the most vocal players, must respect that by showing SQUAD that we are willing to accept their choices and strive onward to get what we want by our own hands with the tools they have given us to do so. We owe it to them to not become the sort of unpleasant monsters that usually show up and divide a community due to a controversial decision by the developers. We're better than that.

This game was driven by it's community, if it didn't get a community it would have been another dead unity project. I don't think we should just blindly accept anything they do as if everything they say is god's rule. We put them where they are and we're within our right to be upset, if you want to ignore the slippery slope then have fun. I'd rather let them know that they didn't make a good choice.

[Tiberion]

The irony is, you guys making a huge fuss? You're the blue line. YOU are the vocal minority. You're 10, 20 or even 100 disgruntled people out of hundreds of thousands of people that own the game. If they were make decision based on angry forum posts, this game really would be in trouble.

You need to get a little perspective. This same conversation has been ongoing for 2 years now, every little controversy is the end of the world and a sign that Squad has lost their way and doesn't care about the little guy anymore. And the updates keep coming, and they're good, and people keep buying the game and people like it.

Squad listens to its players several orders of magnitude more than any developer I have seen. Its not as direct as it used to be because there are many more voices adding noise. Noise like the very rude posts of the last day or so demanding things and complaining about being ignored. Its these kind of "acting out" posts that changed the way Squad had to interact with us in the first place, because they can't be as forthcoming since any little thing they say ends up in a forum post with people flipping their lid about it.

You are NOT helping, You are HURTING.

If you are truly upset about resources, then start a CONSTRUCTIVE post about what you would like to see from a resource system, how you would like to see the gameplay augmented. Tell us how its good for the game in the near future.

Be respectiful, not petulant and demanding. Don't assume you speak for the majority, or complain that you're owed anything other than the next update, whatever it might contain. If you are really of a fan and want to add to the game, do it correctly.

And stop with the drama.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Tiberion

[LethalDose]

Another interesting divergence between Mojang developing Minecraft and SQUAD developing KSP is firm ownership.

Mojang was started by Notch, the original developer of Minecraft, to develop Minecraft.

On the other hand, SQUAD existed prior the to KSP. (I'm a little iffy on the details, but from what I remember:) SQUAD was a social media/gaming company that hired HarvestR as an employee on other projects, then started developing KSP.

So, Minecraft had one person in charge of the entire development (Minecraft was Notch's baby till he passed it over), whereas KSP decisions (I must assume) are ultimately made by SQUAD.

I can't decisively state that this difference has some causal relationship in recent decisions, but it is a major divergence between the development environments of Minecraft and KSP.

[Themohawkninja]

If you are truly upset about resources, then start a CONSTRUCTIVE post about what you would like to see from a resource system, how you would like to see the gameplay augmented. Tell us how its good for the game in the near future.

Which we are doing thank you very much. We are weighing the options, looking at hypothetical graphs, and drawing conclusions to assess the situation.

[Stargate525]

This thread is good proof that parents today don't spank hard enough or often enough.

Dear self entitled little man - YOU DIDN'T WRITE THIS PROGRAM. And you are not the one with the long term vision of where it is going. If you want to be that guy go write your space sim and if its better, then you'll be bigger... But you're probably not going to do that because QQ is easy and doing is harder.

Listening to a community, and turning over the development to the community are VERY different things.

The fact that Squad listens to the "community" at all is far superior to lets say... hmm, I dunno, lets go with Electronic Arts? Would you prefer them running this?

Just because YOUR personal opinion of the optimal dev path for a game is not the same as the developer does not mean they don't hear you. Don't be a crybaby squid just because your favorite shiny thing isn't in the next build... They'll get to it.

I'm not self-entitled, and 'go out and do better' is not an argument, it's a deflection.

I can tell my plumber is doing a bad job without having to start a plumbing business of my own.

I can see when my car isn't working without having built my own.

I can have a view on politics without having been the leader of my own country.

'They can do it worse' is also a terrible argument. You wouldn't say 'Oh, he's killed a man, but at least he isn't Jeffrey Dahmer.' That does not make his crime any better. I'm not arguing that they are the worst company for transparency out there. I am arguing this:

-Squad is not very open to the community regarding its decision-making.

-Such closedness has led some to doubt that there IS any ongoing vision for this project.

-This is bad.

-Being more open would make it better.

[MasterGir]

The irony is, you guys making a huge fuss? You're the blue line. YOU are the vocal minority. You're 10, 20 or even 100 disgruntled people out of hundreds of thousands of people that own the game. If they were make decision based on angry forum posts, this game really would be in trouble.

You need to get a little perspective. This same conversation has been ongoing for 2 years now, every little controversy is the end of the world and a sign that Squad has lost their way and doesn't care about the little guy anymore. And the updates keep coming, and they're good, and people keep buying the game and people like it.

Squad listens to its players several orders of magnitude more than any developer I have seen. Its not as direct as it used to be because there are many more voices adding noise. Noise like the very rude posts of the last day or so demanding things and complaining about being ignored. Its these kind of "acting out" posts that changed the way Squad had to interact with us in the first place, because they can't be as forthcoming since any little thing they say ends up in a forum post with people flipping their lid about it.

You are NOT helping, You are HURTING.

If you are truly upset about resources, then start a CONSTRUCTIVE post about what you would like to see from a resource system, how you would like to see the gameplay augmented. Tell us how its good for the game in the near future.

Be respectiful, not petulant and demanding. Don't assume you speak for the majority, or complain that you're owed anything other than the next update, whatever it might contain. If you are really of a fan and want to add to the game, do it correctly.

And stop with the drama.

There has been plenty of constructive criticism. And I hardly see how saying "I don't like this" is going to hurt if we're a minority.

[Kurtvw]

As a professional developer for a 40 year old company, let me tell you...

Listening to users is important, but letting them decide whats best is bad practice.

It is a tightrope, and you walk it. But just because a large group of users starts screaming for 'Project X', doesn't mean that is the best path. It is the job of any software dev to make his first priority 'Protect the system'. That means that you don't break what is good, no matter what. Second priority is listening.

But Listening and doing aren't the same. In my work I have many cases of users with very valid complaints that demand immediate response, but, their issue is local. In terms of KSP, its just impacting your local game, your personal career. But its not impacting the vast legions of KSP players. So it has to be a lower priority.

The fact that Squad doesn't do the thing you want in any specific release doesn't mean they don't care what you think... It means that they weighed that against internal priority and something else won.

I think these guys are pretty transparent, and I think it is their game. I think they will get resources in when they get a lot of fundamental game play issues resolved. But acting like they are turning a deaf ear to the users is kinda silly considering the ways I've seen them bend to the will of the community in my very brief (3 months or so) time I've been playing and reading here. I think you're a pretty harsh lot, some of you. And I think you seriously should think about what you already got for 30% the price of a box game on a shelf somewhere. Acting like you're getting jerked here is kinda absurd..

[Stargate525]

I fail to see anywhere that the pro-resources people have been whiny, agressive, and demanding. Their main points seem to be that A) taking away resources was a mistake, multiplayer should not be placed ahead of a resource system, and C) we have the right to be vocal and let them know.

This thread is to argue over point C. Do we as paid players have a right to be vocal with our disagreements about the game, and the direction it is going? Whether you are the green line or the blue line is irrelevant, as that right applies to both groups. Because you can't argue that Squad listens and is great with the community on one hand, and then shout down dissenters with 'YOU DON'T DESERVE TO COMPLAIN' with the other.

Ok, got it... you're a troll. And this is your thread. No more free feedings from me, troll.

Uh, what? How?

Edited December 15, 2013 by Stargate525

[SkyRender]

This game was driven by it's community, if it didn't get a community it would have been another dead unity project. I don't think we should just blindly accept anything they do as if everything they say is god's rule. We put them where they are and we're within our right to be upset, if you want to ignore the slippery slope then have fun. I'd rather let them know that they didn't make a good choice.

I do understand where you're coming from. But I must reiterate: we are the minority. A powerful minority, an influential one, but ultimately we are not representative. Let me ask: have you ever been part of a developing game's community, and over time you found that you hated the direction the game was going because it just kept tacking on more and more features that you didn't care about because they were just too complex or took the game in a direction you didn't want to see things go? That's exactly what SQUAD is trying to avoid here. Just as it's dangerous to give in entirely to what the majority want, it's also dangerous to give in entirely to what the minority want. The side-effects are identical for both sides of the spectrum: one side dislikes the new direction things are going and leaves, and the other side is all that's left. Not a good outcome no matter how you look at it.

We don't have to split this community apart pointlessly over the direction of the game's development. It's within our power to prevent it, and we have every reason to want to do so. The changes in direction have one key distinction from many others: they are not compulsory ones. If you don't want multiplayer, you are not obligated to participate in it. If you want a more robust resource system, a mod will come into existence sooner than later that can fill that desire. We're the most capable players in the community, and I would like to think that we're also some of the most mature as well. But it's hard to argue that point when we have so much pointless bickering about how what we wanted isn't going to be added.

[Themohawkninja]

I do understand where you're coming from. But I must reiterate: we are the minority. A powerful minority, an influential one, but ultimately we are not representative.

While this is a good point to bring up when the whole community contributes (like a small town), it isn't as much of a point in game development, whereby the only people that contribute are the people on the forums that either (or both) find bugs, or make mods.

You can't really say that every single player represents the whole community if every single player doesn't contribute to the game.

[Stargate525]

We don't have to split this community apart pointlessly over the direction of the game's development. It's within our power to prevent it, and we have every reason to want to do so. The changes in direction have one key distinction from many others: they are not compulsory ones. If you don't want multiplayer, you are not obligated to participate in it. If you want a more robust resource system, a mod will come into existence sooner than later that can fill that desire. We're the most capable players in the community, and I would like to think that we're also some of the most mature as well. But it's hard to argue that point when we have so much pointless bickering about how what we wanted isn't going to be added.

You're right. But at what point does a vocal protest of 'I disagree with your direction' become 'pointless bickering?' Your argument on mod versus obligation can be just as easily used for the other side. In fact, up until two days ago, it WAS the other side. I completely agree that Squad shouldn't 'give in.' On multiplayer or on resources or whatever. But the pro-resource people have a right to air their disagreement until such time as they receive an acknowledgement that they have been heard.

I have seen no such thing thusfar.

[SkyRender]

While this is a good point to bring up when the whole community contributes (like a small town), it isn't as much of a point in game development, whereby the only people that contribute are the people on the forums that either (or both) find bugs, or make mods.

You can't really say that every single player represents the whole community if every single player doesn't contribute to the game.

While I cannot argue that, I can tell you this from experience: pandering to the minority in game development can and does lead to big problems. Developers know and hate it, but the fact remains that they have to keep the big picture in mind. If they fail to do that, that minority will gradually become a majority by virtue of their audience shrinking. And that is not something many developers like the idea of.

You're right. But at what point does a vocal protest of 'I disagree with your direction' become 'pointless bickering?' Your argument on mod versus obligation can be just as easily used for the other side. In fact, up until two days ago, it WAS the other side. I completely agree that Squad shouldn't 'give in.' On multiplayer or on resources or whatever. But the pro-resource people have a right to air their disagreement until such time as they receive an acknowledgement that they have been heard.

I have seen no such thing thusfar.

I've been closely following all of the discussions about the announcement concerning resources, and I've seen a lot of very angry and hateful things said about SQUAD's decision. It's not anything you personally have said; it's what the minority community at large have been saying.

[Themohawkninja]

While I cannot argue that, I can tell you this from experience: pandering to the minority in game development can and does lead to big problems. Developers know and hate it, but the fact remains that they have to keep the big picture in mind. If they fail to do that, that minority will gradually become a majority by virtue of their audience shrinking. And that is not something many developers like the idea of.

True, but as Stargate525 said

...the pro-resource people have a right to air their disagreement until such time as they receive an acknowledgement that they have been heard.

I have seen no such thing thusfar.

That sums up exactly how I feel about this whole issue. The community, minority or not, needs to be acknowledged and responded to.

[Kurtvw]

Uh, what? How?

Squad says straight up prior to you spending a penny on this game that they will or will not develop precisely as they please, and perhaps not at all... That you have no expectation that they will ever issue any update EVER...

You missed that apparently, clicking is fun, reading is not... Or maybe you didn't take them seriously. They were 500% more honest with you than any other game maker.

Now you call them in to question on integrity. I think you're the problem honestly.

Resources will be along when they come along, but all you're doing is sewing discontent... and making an unhappy fanbase only serves to undermine all the good stuff Squad is trying to do. Be patient and just deal with the fact that you, and people who want what you want are not calling the shots. And I'm not calling the shots either. My opinion is that the game is better than in was on the day I paid for it, and thats more than they ever promised me. Thats good business.

[Vanamonde]

So many people are demanding "transparency." Squad had a plan that included a resource system, and said so. They've now changed the plan, and said so. That is transparency, and the current hysteria is the result. Is it any wonder they become reluctant to open their mouths, knowing they'll be hit with vitriolic accusations no matter what they say? But if they do the sensible thing, avoid the headaches, and only speak up now and then, they're accused of dishonesty, fraud, and even more ridiculous things.

What is different about Squad? Sony doesn't tell you when they change their minds and make next year's remote controls silver instead of black, so you don't have the chance to get up in arms about the change. The only reason folks are able to get locked into an opinion about a suggested KSP feature is that Squad mentioned they were considering it in the first place. The game is still in development, and this will not be the last time the plan gets changed. If you're not prepared for that, you are setting yourself up for entirely avoidable upsets.

-Squad is not very open to the community regarding its decision-making.

They're under no obligation to be. As others have suggested, if you think otherwise, you didn't read the terms you legally agreed to before purchasing the game. You bought a copy of a game, not voting stock as a Squad shareholder.

[SkyRender]

True, but as Stargate525 said

That sums up exactly how I feel about this whole issue. The community, minority or not, needs to be acknowledged and responded to.

And we will be. As I said, SQUAD is not ignorant of our outcry. They know of the upset; how can they not? They know we are key to their success, that we are the source of much of the growth of the game's popularity by proxy of how we spread the word about it to the outside world. We must be patient. If nothing else, we must accept that we won't get acknowledgement before Monday, as SQUAD closes their office for the weekend. After all of the stress of KerbalKon and all of the technical problems that came up, I can't blame them for not wanting to tackle this storm we've brewed up on their off time.

[Themohawkninja]

And we will be. As I said, SQUAD is not ignorant of our outcry. They know of the upset; how can they not? They know we are key to their success, that we are the source of much of the growth of the game's popularity by proxy of how we spread the word about it to the outside world. We must be patient. If nothing else, we must accept that we won't get acknowledgement before Monday, as SQUAD closes their office for the weekend. After all of the stress of KerbalKon and all of the technical problems that came up, I can't blame them for not wanting to tackle this storm we've brewed up on their off time.

I understand. I know that we won't get responded to until at least tomorrow. I was just pointing out that we should be acknowledged and responded to at some point in time, which I also agree that we will be.

[Stargate525]

While I cannot argue that, I can tell you this from experience: pandering to the minority in game development can and does lead to big problems. Developers know and hate it, but the fact remains that they have to keep the big picture in mind. If they fail to do that, that minority will gradually become a majority by virtue of their audience shrinking. And that is not something many developers like the idea of.

Yes, but who is the minority here? And isn't breaking your vision to cater to the majority equally bad?

The undercurrent I've been picking up here along with the 'we want resources' is that a large number of those people feel downright betrayed after seeing months and months of 'multiplayer is never going to be in this game' transform into 'why yes, multiplayer is one of our core focuses' literally overnight.

By big picture, do you mean the plan they have to make their game the best it can be, or the roadmap to make as much money as they can off of it? I'm not arguing that they're following either one specifically, just curious which you think they're on, given their actions, and which one they should be on.

I've been closely following all of the discussions about the announcement concerning resources, and I've seen a lot of very angry and hateful things said about SQUAD's decision. It's not anything you personally have said; it's what the minority community at large have been saying.

You have my genuine thanks for that. I hate being seen as a jerk, and given how much I do enjoy debate, that tends to happen on the internet a lot. As you've seen, I've already been labelled a troll by one person. >.>

[Whackjob]

Ok, pardon me here, but I've read this thread, and I still have no idea what the heck is going on. Some people are ticked. I catch that. But why? Is it because things aren't being done fast enough? The right things aren't being done first? Progress is still being made, as far as I'm seeing anyway, and whether or not the specific things I want done are being done next is of small concern to me. I see they're working, I see they're adding things, and I am content.

I suppose I'm just going to summarize and say I don't get the angst suddenly flying around.

[PDCWolf]

I'm just gonna post the terms of service here which states

Are you trying to make squad look better, bad or are you trying to make the community look like a group of entitled brats?

whats wrong with minecraft?

I wasn't around for minecraft until post-release 1.3; Just what exactly went wrong with it? It was mentioned several other times in the other thread, and I'm missing context for the analogy. Could you fill me in?

Back when minecraft was a baby, Notch would go left and right showing his concept of the game, making promises and convincing everyone that the game was going to be great. Hell, he even used to browse 4chan to make those promises, and everybody loved him for his project of a game.

Then the game reached a critical point (the one marked in the graph). By that time the vocal minority was a minority, but notch saw this as an oportunity. It speaks really well of notch in terms of business but not in terms of being a good person. He decided to ditch his vision and promises to implement those small ideas the vocal minority had. This obviously attracted more of the vocal minority alienating the original players and those who Notch promised the entire world to.

At that point in time, Notch stopped visiting 4chan (everyone started pretty much proving him wrong and doing things at the level of the DLC Fiasco, telling him how he betrayed his original community for money).

That's what we call "pull a notch", to betray your original community and ignore your promises to bring more money into your pocket. It's a great business strategy, obviously, but not good for people or your reputation as a person, except for those of the vocal minority who now love you.

Full transparency wouldn't be easy, as after a while there would be far to many ideas getting thrown around/scrapped and you run into the aforementioned issue of the vocal minority.

Not really, you can just make meetings to discuss things seriously, and then reveal them to the community on a detailed manner.

Once the community hits a certain point though, you just can't have a totally community-led game unless you only focus on proof-of-concepts (that is to say, mods).

The community is only for feedback, you should remain true to your promises and ideals and the community will follow.

If they want to keep and expand their userbase I think it'd be wise to not alienate or ignore them. It's really as simple as that. They don't need to take everything we say to heart but if the majority of their userbase disagrees with a decision then it was probably a bad decision.

Then you turn into a community led project, which isn't really good at this stage. As I said, you should remain true to your original vision and development roadmap.

And the updates keep coming, and they're good

OPINION

and people keep buying the game and people like it.

WHO buys the game and WHO likes it is the problem at bay. WHO does squad develop for? Are they pulling a notch or not?

Squad listens to its players several orders of magnitude more than any developer I have seen. Its not as direct as it used to be because there are many more voices adding noise. Noise like the very rude posts of the last day or so demanding things and complaining about being ignored. Its these kind of "acting out" posts that changed the way Squad had to interact with us in the first place, because they can't be as forthcoming since any little thing they say ends up in a forum post with people flipping their lid about it.

As I said, if you post a roadmap and your final vision of the game, then there's nothing to complain about, but if you flip everything midway -for something that looks like a cashgrab no less- then you are going to get fecal matter for it.

You are NOT helping, You are HURTING.

Opinion.

If you are truly upset about resources, then start a CONSTRUCTIVE post about what you would like to see from a resource system, how you would like to see the gameplay augmented. Tell us how its good for the game in the near future.

What a coincidence! I though we were just doing that! jesus christ I'm so, SOO wrong. I though we were just keeping a thread civil. I though I just asked a mod to reopen a discussion with the promise to keep it civil, AND I THOUGH EVERYTHING WAS CIVIL.

Oh wait, it is.

Be respectiful, not petulant and demanding. Don't assume you speak for the majority, or complain that you're owed anything other than the next update, whatever it might contain. If you are really of a fan and want to add to the game, do it correctly.

And stop with the drama.

We are being respectful, the point is there's just too much people saying the same and it looks like an outrage and a fiasco. All I see is 4 polls that remain civil and this thread. And everyone is making an effort to contain their emotions to keep the discussion going.

They owe something to us? This deserves an entire thread on itself.

Being a fan is the worst thing you can do. Fanatism means blindly following everything without complaint or question. Fans are the cancer killing society. And this sentence is way off-topic, but yeah, you got me this much into it with your post.

[Vanamonde]

The discussion is getting rather heated, guys, and I've just snipped some posts where tempers were getting out of hand. Please keep the discussion to the ideas rather than attacking each other.

[MasterGir]

They're under no obligation to be.

This is a horrible mentality to have, the fact that it's coming from a mod is worse. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but some of the best developers are also the most open and transparent ones.

-snip-

Edited December 15, 2013 by KasperVld

[Themohawkninja]

Ok, pardon me here, but I've read this thread, and I still have no idea what the heck is going on. Some people are ticked. I catch that. But why? Is it because things aren't being done fast enough? The right things aren't being done first? Progress is still being made, as far as I'm seeing anyway, and whether or not the specific things I want done are being done next is of small concern to me. I see they're working, I see they're adding things, and I am content.

I suppose I'm just going to summarize and say I don't get the angst suddenly flying around.

The angst has to do with the fact that Squad was going to implement resources for (as far as the community was concerned) quite a long time now, and resources were on many people's mind's every update (there have been various polls regarding "what would you like to see for .2x", and the highest chosen tended to be resources), and not all of a sudden, Squad trashes the idea.

That plus, people view resources as more reason to go to planets and make bases and what not, because there really isn't much reason to right now.