Just what is the community to SQUAD?

[Whackjob]

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.

That's not the issue. The issue isn't that a good little player should sit down, shut up, and just take whatever. I don't think anyone here is espousing this behavior.

The issue is there is a small subset of people on this board and elsewhere that have this vastly inflated sense of self entitlement. They believe that because they paid money, that it somehow excuses really horrid behavior. It's one thing to be disappointed, it's another to think that this disappointment gives them the right to perform the forum equivalent of flopping on their back, thrashing their limbs around, accompany the whole mess with a verbal cacophony, all the while hoping that making a scene like this will cause the devs to cave in and drop what they're doing to do exactly whatever it is they want.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, disappointment isn't a jerk license. Criticize away, just do it in a respectful, constructive method. Behaving like a toddler in the snacks isle of a supermarket by making a scene might have worked back when the toilet function was still largely a mystery, but the real world doesn't work like that. Being a snide [EXPLETIVE DELETED] will not sway anyone to the view being pushed. It will not sway anyone to this argument, and it will not further the goal.

Not aiming this at you specifically, Stargate, as I've only occasionally popped in here to say the occasional thing, and I have no idea what side of the issue you're actually on. I just quoted you to make this point.

[Stargate525]

That's not the issue. The issue isn't that a good little player should sit down, shut up, and just take whatever. I don't think anyone here is espousing this behavior.

The issue is there is a small subset of people on this board and elsewhere that have this vastly inflated sense of self entitlement. They believe that because they paid money, that it somehow excuses really horrid behavior. It's one thing to be disappointed, it's another to think that this disappointment gives them the right to perform the forum equivalent of flopping on their back, thrashing their limbs around, accompany the whole mess with a verbal cacophony, all the while hoping that making a scene like this will cause the devs to cave in and drop what they're doing to do exactly whatever it is they want.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, disappointment isn't a jerk license. Criticize away, just do it in a respectful, constructive method. Behaving like a toddler in the snacks isle of a supermarket by making a scene might have worked back when the toilet function was still largely a mystery, but the real world doesn't work like that. Being a snide [EXPLETIVE DELETED] will not sway anyone to the view being pushed. It will not sway anyone to this argument, and it will not further the goal.

Not aiming this at you specifically, Stargate, as I've only occasionally popped in here to say the occasional thing, and I have no idea what side of the issue you're actually on. I just quoted you to make this point.

On that I entirely agree.

And here, in this thread, I'm not on either side. It's irrelevant. As I've said about other things elsewhere in my life, I might disagree with your side, but I will fight alongside you tooth and nail for the ability of that side to exist. It spurs discussion and debate and, hopefully, a better outcome for all involved.

[OdinYggd]

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.

Not necessarily. There's no really good solution to this, as they all have drawbacks. Squad tried the silent treatment, people got just as frustrated and upset until they had to come forward and talk again. The best solution to date seems to be the compromise, simply thinking through what is said but making sure to provide regular press releases when they can do so.

Some communication is necessary so people don't feel like the developer abandoned them.

What is problematic is forming a hypetrain for a feature that isn't even written yet. Sure they can talk about it all day, but pitching it like they are certain they will causes problems when they realize that implementing it is not nearly as easy as they hoped.

Its rare enough for them to actually publish a release date- they have not done this in a long time due to the problems it caused, and yet the current published plans call for a release of 0.23 on 2013-12-17. Either way, less than two days till the update comes out.

The developers do have their own image for how KSP should be, and to date they have stuck to this fairly well even if not necessarily in any particular order. It would be nice if they factored in some feedback, and they do a fine job through the play-testing group during the experimental program. But by that point in a cycle the features are implemented as fully as the release, and they are just checking for bugs as well as providing last minute balance changes if the testing group identifies a particular issue.

Edited December 16, 2013 by OdinYggd

[maxpower]

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.

Incorrect. The problem is actually a lack of communication. Most of the community dustups over the years could have been avoided, or at leased lessened with more straightforward communication. This whole resource snafu for example could have been prevented if SQUAD simply informed the community of their decision when it was made (likely several months ago), and were very strait forward with the whole situation. That would have allowed them to get out in front of it, and most of the community would have been fine with that. Instead they made some off hand comments about it and ran away from the community. Its not the amount of communication, its how you communicate... and despite all their efforts SQUAD is still really bad at it.

Edited December 16, 2013 by stupid_chris
removed deleted quote

[Unabled]

I keep seeing this assumption that resources have been "dropped", "scrapped", or "indefinitely postponed" etc. I have been wondering where this keeps coming from because I did not get that impresssion from the KKon statement at all.

Rough quote(s) from HarvesteR's own words:

"We put it on the backburner for a long time...It's been sitting there while we focus on scope complete."... "We ended up redesigning it because we felt that it was over-complicated...but still we weren't very happy with it. It just felt too complicated and too frustrating, because it's a feature that requires you to master the game before you can appreciate that it exists.... It was becoming very much unfun, top-heavy, and not what we wanted exactly." "Resources the way we had it planned back in .19 just isn't going to happen like that. We tried it, and it wasn't fun."... "I know it's not what a lot of you guys wanted to hear, especially since many of you have been very much in love with that chart."... "It ended up not being what we wanted with the game." "Its not saying there wont be any new resources at all. There are still kind of plans for other ideas that involve being able to extract things, maybe not from the surface...but this is all kind of theoretical..."

That last line it would be nice to have cleared up because I don't know how you extract things without doing it from the surface, but I just write that off as a slip or nerves or whatever. So Squad very much wanted to include resources, they tried what they had originally, redesigned it, and decided it still wasn't working right. Bummer.

Harv then talks about wanting to have mechanics that would allow you to do what resources would have allowed...like fixing things while on missions and to do problem solving Apollo 13 style. When I think Apollo 13, I think along the lines of life-support problem solving, which was on their original list but that's just me. Of course, no one should read into any of his statement too much.

To me it seems like Squad will be trying to design something that would be more inline with what their overall vision is while they work on bringing KSP to "scope complete". I see nothing wrong with that, and I see nothing indicating it will be scrapped indefinitely. Could they have communicated this sooner and more clearly? Absolutely, but it seems they really did not want to just stop the attempt and say so until they had tried it as much as they could.

I know some can argue that those that want this feature are the ones who have mastered the game, so it wouldn't be complicated and would be appreciated! Yes that is true, but stop for a second and take into account all that they are proposing with career mode.

In a previous video, HarvesteR talks about wanting to add contracts next which give you cash and reputation. There will be three main 'currencies': science, money, and reputation points, which will all be convertible with one another. Then they go on to say this will be the core of the tycoon part of KSP. With 3 different currencies, I am not sure I see where resources as it was originally designed could fit. Not to mention the ability to mine resources and take them back to sell seems like it would be hard to balance with the science and contracts. Balance issues aside, if you were to progress through career mode taking contracts and doing science etc., by the time you got around to having the capability of setting up a mining operation on an alien body you would have gone beyond 'mastering the game'. Not just skill wise, but you would probably have enough cash and capability that mining resources wouldn't have much of a point other than just something else to do.

Plus who's to say you couldn't put some of those elements into either science or the contracts systems? Contracts alone you could probably do almost anything with.

Now don't get me wrong, I think resources would be a cool idea. It might even be the way to make include 'end game goal' of sorts, but I just don't know that the whole crafting system as they had set up before is the way to go.

Looking at that flow chart everything led to basically a fuel, monoprop, or a small bit of life support. I suppose they could simplify all the superfluous stuff and let you get just that, fuel resources and some means of life support; I just don't know. In a way resources have already begun to be (very) partially implemented with solar energy and electricity, taken straight from that flow chart no less. Who knows what bits future updates will bring along.

I think the best thing the community can do is start up some brainstorming threads in the suggestions & development forum on this very subject; how to implement resources in general and have it work well with the other systems. How to implement life-support, which almost seems like it would be to kerbals what the power is to probes right now. It would be cool to have, but how do you do it right? How do you keep it in line with the theme of game?

I think all the energy in this forum needs to be turned towards this instead of the back and forth I have been reading for 29 pages.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Unabled
Too early.

[stupid_chris]

Okay guys, we had to do some thread cleaning here.

Please be aware that your personal opinions may vastly differ from other people's opinions. As long as the discussion is kept clean and polite, this thread can keep going, but if we see that the discussion is starting to become a follow up of personal attack and people sniping and getting angry at each other for the simple reason that they have different opinions, we'll be closing this thread.

Keep calm and carry on.

[Stargate525]

Unabled, that's very similar to the conclusion I've drawn as well. Hopefully there will be something... er... later today that clears this up some more.

This was not intended to be a resources/multiplayer thread, but it keeps getting dragged there. Pity, as I think that the other discussion is (fortunately not nearly as pressing) still an interesting and relevant one to have.

[Highlad]

Do you remember when there was a big row about what the player was paying for and people were worried about what they were getting in the final game as opposed to in paid DLC/addons?

Squad showed their cards and allowed everyone who had purchased the game to be entitled to addons/DLC free of charge as they bought the game under the impression that they would be receiving it anyway.

I think that really shows how squad thinks of us, Not as just a financing source but as a supportive community.

As far as influence goes, we should have some say in how the game is made. We are the people who are going to be playing the final release and as such, our opinion should be (and I believe is) valued.

But just as a writer will take suggestions from a fan base but still write the book he/she wants, so too it think will squad take our opinion into consideration but make the game they see fit.

[iDan122]

I like multiplayer, but I would want resources(like kethane) first, it is muc more fun to manufacture fuel on Minmus and ferry it to ships than have some guy slam his rocket into your 1000 part interplanetary ship, ugh.

Multiplayer might ruin the community, resources will bring so much depth into the game, bases will actually make sense and grand tours will finally be possible with stock parts.

[Smidge204]

To everyone pointing out that science is a grind, and therefore it somehow makes no sense to exclude resources because they are a grind... I don't see how having a little bit of grind in a game makes it okay to add more? "Boy, hunting slimes is a real chore, but since I'm already inconvenienced I guess I wouldn't mind grinding skeletons as well!" That's borderline psychotic reasoning IMHO.

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.

Hyperbolic? More like Hypergolic!

/Rocket humor

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 paid US$23. I absolutely got $23 worth of game out of it so far. It's hard to say what the game will be "worth" when it hits the final release. But by your vein of reasoning, I actually have more a "right" to complain than you do since I'm more invested... but I understand the relationship between me and the publisher, and that no matter how much I paid I am not owed anything more than what I purchased at that instant. Anything above and beyond that is pure gravy, and I've got no grounds to complain if that gravy has a few lumps in it.

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?

You're contradicting yourself - you say you don't want a "boardroom seat" but you want the devs to be accountable to you... well, do you want to be their boss or not? Do you want a seat at the table where you have a say in how the game is developed, or are you content to sit off to the side and accept the choices that they make? You can't have both.

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.

Ha. Hahaha. Haha. Oh wow. I hope that was sarcasm.

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.

But you didn't per-purchase anything. You purchased something that was unfinished. There's a world of difference there: It was explicitly stated (at least for me) that there was no promise whatsoever that the game would be finished or even updated. You bought an unfinished game with the hope of future updates, not with any promise or guarantee of future updates. That is where your view of the situation goes wrong.

You bought what they were offering at the time, and as a token of thanks for putting up with an unfinished, buggy game, Squad is giving you free updates. They explicitly do not OWE you those updates. You did not "pre-pay" for anything. You got 100% of what you paid for the instant you got your activation code.

=Smidge=

[Comrade Jenkens]

I judge a game roughly by the amount of hours it has kept me hooked and KSP stands well above pretty much any other game in that regard (bar Skyrim) Though I got it cheap it has easily been worth the price of a AAA game!

[djnattyd]

I judge a game roughly by the amount of hours it has kept me hooked and KSP stands well above pretty much any other game in that regard (bar Skyrim) Though I got it cheap it has easily been worth the price of a AAA game!

Agreed. According to Steam I've put in 55 hours, but that's only the times I've used Steam to launch it. If I had fully stats from the times I've used the shortcut on my desktop, it'd be well over 300. The only other games I've played that much are Skyrim and Star Trek Online. For me, Squad have gone above and beyond in keeping the community in-the-loop and while things have been pushed back or reprioritised, (<- apparently not a real word) I've come across devs that have been a lot less forthcoming in their plans.

[Monkeh]

Squad made some software called KSP. It was a good piece of software and it became popular and sold lot's of copies before it had been finished. People who had bought the software did so with full knowledge that Squad didn't HAVE to add any more content should they not want to and they were paying for an unfinished product. These people then get on their high horse, a fictional, wispy horse of very little substance, and started calling Squad all kinds of names after their plans for the game changed a bit.

Do you know what I would do if I were Squad? I'd say, stuff you you ungrateful, entitled bunch of moaners, here's what we're going to do. We've just made a decent amount of cash after being on Steam for this length of time, our bank balance is looking very healthy thank you. Now then, all of this poo storm you've created has made us upset. We realized that multiplayer is possible and got all excited that we could bring you THE most requested feature, by a huge margin, of any and all and we also found that the resources system we had designed wasn't very fun to play with. We were going to change tack, give you all multiplayer and then go back to sort some resources out as well, but now, now, after the behaviour you've shown this weekend, we've decided to stop all development of KSP as of today. We're laughing all the way to the bank and all of you who called us nasty names are to blame for the cessation of this project.

Please consider 0.23 to be 1.0 and the last update from Squad for KSP. We shall pop up again in a short time with new nicknames and a new project and the best bit is you'll pay for that one early as well because you won't recognize us.

SUCKERS!

[ElJugador]

@monkeh

Squad abandoning development of KSP while it's still turning a profit/making funds? That's like the Public Relations and career equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

Scratch that, in both feet. It's not going to happen.

[KasperVld]

Monkeh, the way you worded your post is a bit on the edge and may insult people. Please keep that in mind

[Monkeh]

Well of course it's not going to happen, the point is they could, if they wanted, do exactly that and be breaking no laws or committing no crime. People should remember that.

Also, shooting yourself in the foot used to happen quite a lot. People did it on purpose to get out of a situation they didn't like or feel they should stay in... Squad could come to work this morning and see all this and maybe feel that a bit of foot pain can be lived with. Just sayin'.

Edit: Sorry KasperVld, some people have very annoying attitudes, I was simply trying to provide a wake up call.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Monkeh

[Alguien]

We

whats with the we and why the heck do you think you have the right to use it?

Did you know than maybe after being told than multiplayer NEVER and then doing a 180º on that may actually change the opinions of players about it? specially when, at best, they push single player stuff to the sides for the sake of multiplayer, no to mention the whole stability and optimization problems are going to blow up the roof with more than one people playing the game which i dont see how they are going to fix that, and honestly is just adding more trash into the already big list of "things to do" they have

And for other part the lack of any short of communication, oh yes, we are suppose to get a notice today(lets see how it turns that out), but why the heck let the forums burn about it for a whole weekend? not to mention than after a whole year of info they just say it was canned (with a "maybe in the future") in five minutes, say it wasnt fun and call it a day

Edited December 16, 2013 by Alguien

[vexx32]

Nobody said any game features would be pushed aside just so multiplayer could have some vague semblance of implementation. You guys are assuming an awful lot here, with zero basis, so be careful; you're treading on thin ice. While it is quite easy to assume multiplayer will be exactly the same as single player with more people, it is entirely possible that the option of multiplayer could provide some things single player cannot. Being able to work together or in discrete groups may introduce further gameplay mechanics everyone here seems to be overlooking.

Communication has not generally been the best, but that doesn't mean that complaining about it will fix it. At the end of the day, at least Squad saw fit to let us all know at least some of what they're doing. You may not approve of what you hear, but also keep in mind you do not have enough information to say one way or the other whether it will be a good or bad thing in the end. I'd wager even the developers have to take some guesses here and there as to what is and is not a good idea. The way they thought resources might work turned out to be bust, so naturally one scraps that plan and either leaves it for a while (I know that attempting to re-do a project from scratch often works better if you work on something else for a little while, else you may find you've merely started rebuilding the previous failure instead of actually coming up with new ideas) or opts to find alternate ways to accomplish the goal.

"A whole year of info" is a bit of a misleading statement. Sure, we knew that resources was in the works for a fairly long time... but we had, what, a rudimentary description, a flowchart or two, and a few screenshots to show for it. It's not as though we had a great deal of info on the system, so attempting to justify or nullify Squad's canning of the feature will rely heavily on one's own speculation. You guys are free to speculate, but speculation has no place in the arguments being tossed around like balls of gasoline in this thread (and others). Speculate when you're not arguing. Stick to the facts when you are. Otherwise, it's going to get personal, time and time again, and we're going to have to shut down discussion to avoid people ending up at each other's throats constantly.

And you can get angry all you like, but I really don't think you've any right to be directing your anger at other users. They might not agree with you, but it's important to remember that you are not omniscient. They may have put some pieces together that you missed and come to an entirely different conclusion about the whole event. Do not discount the opinion of others simply because they disagree with you, lest you miss the information you may be looking for.

[Monkeh]

whats with the we and why the heck do you think you have the right to use it?

Not sure what you mean. The only use of 'we' in my post was where I was speaking 'for' Squad. It was a fantasy thought process.

Did you know than maybe after being told than multiplayer NEVER and then doing a 180º on that may actually change the opinions of players about it? specially when, at best, they push single player stuff to the sides for the sake of multiplayer, no to mention the whole stability and optimization problems are going to blow up the roof with more than one people playing the game which i dont see how they are going to fix that, and honestly is just adding more trash into the already big list of "things to do" they have

KSP multiplayer is already a reality. A mod exists that makes it possible and it works.

And for other part the lack of any short of communication, oh yes, we are suppose to get a notice today(lets see how it turns that out), but why the heck let the forums burn about it for a whole weekend? not to mention than after a whole year of info they just say it was canned (with a "maybe in the future") in five minutes, say it wasnt fun and call it a day

Just to make myself clear. You paid for some software that wasn't finished and will be updated. You paid for what was there already, not for what they may, or may not, add in the future. Squad can do WHATEVER THEY LIKE with their software, make it into a hotdog eating competiton simulator...WITH REAL PHYSICS! if they so desired and you could do absolutely nothing to stop them.

Just enjoy what they've given us and hope what YOU want is added in time.

[Vrana]

Do you know what I would do if I were Squad?... snipped stuff about devs taking revenge on players..... SUCKERS!

I get what you are saying and yes parts of the community are "overreacting" so i agree with you up to a point.

However, what you are doing is also overreacting. You are basicly saying that customers who are unsatisfied or think they will be unsatified with the product in future should not voice thier opinion out of fear that the devs will abandon the project to take revenge. Really?

[Monkeh]

Voicing opinion is fine. Moaning and whinging and throwing insults around about fraud and what not is not the same thing. If a player bought this game expecting this feature or that feature to be implemented in the 'final' version, then they only have themselves to blame. It is clearly stated everywhere that, "Still in development....things can change...blah blah blah", and I dare anyone on this forum to honestly state they haven't had their monies worth already.

Obviously my post was tongue in cheek, of course they're not going to abandon KSP for some nasty words written on a forum, the point was they could if they wanted to and be breaking no law.

[Alguien]

Voicing opinion is fine. Moaning and whinging and throwing insults

I don't want to hear lessons from a hypocrite than is doing exactly the same thing he is blaming others for doing

[allmhuran]

It seems to me that discussions about the "rights" of various player groups, whether any particular group can be considered representative, what obligations squad might have, or should have, notwithstanding whatever is in the EULA, what particular phase of the SDLC the game is in, and so on, are all red herrings. Debates circle the drain endlessly because there is no factual or logical basis upon which to construct any kind of real argument regarding such topics:

• What phase of the SDLC is the game in? I don't know... why does the label matter? Which particular form of SDLC are you referring to? Software development processes and technologies have evolved more rapidly than almost any other human creation on the planet.
  
• Are forum users, or reddit users, or some other group of visible users representative or not representative of the majority of the player base? We have absolutely no data with which to make that assessment, so this discussion can go nowhere.
  
• Does the player base have rights/does squad, or should squad, have obligations? This just brings up the tired entitlement debates. Can we not simply say that there are good and bad ways to behave on both sides and leave it there?
  

Some excellent posts have been made in this thread (PDCWolf, SkyRender, Stargate525, I'm looking at you. Really good, reason based discussion going on there). And I think the best discussion has been about transparency. Now, Vanamode has claimed that Squad has provided transparency by announcing the change, and that this has resulted in great pain, so transparency is evidently bad.

But this is not what is meant by transparency.

Transparency would mean informing the community that you were considering changing direction when you began to consider it, not after you had decided to do it. It would also, perhaps most importantly, mean telling the communty your reasons for that consideration, and inviting them to discuss it on the forums for a week. Doing it this way is mutually beneficial, because it gives the developers the opportunity to hear feedback at the point where it can still be effective. They can sit back for a week, see what the community churns out, and if they see some good suggestions add them in to their decision making processes.

By the way, Blizzard would give the master class on this. If you want to see how to effectively work with the community, look at the development of Starcraft and Starcraft 2 and see how they interact early, with reasons, and get feedback before doing something.

This is also why I truly despise the "stop complaining, the game is still in development" position. The time during which the game is in development is the only effective time to voice your opinion. Imagine we all waited silently until the game was released and squad moved on to another project. What, then, would be the point of providing feedback when no change could result?

Edited December 16, 2013 by allmhuran

[Monkeh]

Please do show me where I insulted anyone. Point out where I whinged and moaned, please do. You are entitled to listen to whoever you so please, naturally, but the players of KSP need to realise that Squad owe them absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, nil. The game was bought 'as is'. They are under no obligation to add anything else at all. No multiplayer, no resources, hell, they could even take everything out again and there would be nothing you could do but try to get to the Mun without maneuver nodes.

My point is just that, Squad owe you, me and us absolutely nothing. Whether you listen to me or not, that fact is still a fact.

[KasperVld]

I'm going to put a stop to that, Monkeh/Alguien, personal debates between two people are not what this topic is for