KerbalKon Announcements

[razark]

I see where you are getting at, but if a bomb works a few times, you can say that it works. If you fire up an engine a few times, you still don't know what will happen when you throw it up into deep space for months on end.

How many complete launch to explosion tests were conducted of ICBMs? I know of only end to end test (actually an SLBM), but I think it would be hard to label it "futuristic" in any way.

Or did they actually do long-term vacuum testing with the NERVA?

Not to my knowledge. Partial vacuum testing was achieved, I believe. The fact is that the program was canceled (for political reasons, not technical ones) before a launch was undertaken.

1967 Outer Space Treaty. Any radiactive engine put up there has the potential of being a dirty version of a Rod From God. It's a no-go.

The treaty banned nuclear weapons from space. NERVA was an engine, and was no more a weapon that the nuclear power sources used on many spacecraft since then. See Kosmos 954 and 1402.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic.

[JordanL]

Awesome you develop a game! What game I would love to try it out!

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, so I guess I'll approach this seriously.

I don't develop games, and the point in mentioning that I'm a developer was not to make it seem like I know what they should do better than they do. I mentioned that I'm a developer, because the specific point that I was being asked about (client communication) is something that is common to all development, but is very different from most other fields.

I've been on the other side of this (with individual clients and companies instead of communities), and I know that sometimes it's better for Dev to simply not communicate or say something until they have a good plan in place. One thing you really don't want if you're developing anything is letting the client (or in this case community) drive the dev cycle, but if you expose a void of information, the client will always fill it with something. It's often better to not mention the void of information until you have your own plan on how to fill it.

In this case, I think that this whole resource thing would actually be received a lot differently from the community if it wasn't paired with the announcement of multiplayer as a core mechanic. This has come off to many users as, "The thing we said we wouldn't do because it was impossible is part of our scope and always has been, and the thing that we said we would do and gave detailed outlines for is no longer in scope because we didn't like how it worked".

I mean, they are both entirely valid things to happen, but juxtaposed it sort of sets everyone off, and makes it seem like SQUAD doesn't know what they're doing (they know what they're doing). It probably should have been something like:

"Multiplayer is something that we've always wanted to put into the game, but for the longest time we didn't know if it would be possible within our development cycle. Now that we're further into alpha, it's clear that our scope can handle multiplayer, which is a feature we feel will strongly improve the experience of the game.

"When it comes to the resource system that we outlined a while ago, we haven't talked about it since because we don't have anything to say. Resource mining, like other 'end-game' content, will be tackled once we have all of the core development to a state we're happy with. There's lots of things that we can do to make the core gameplay more enjoyable first, and that's a better use of our time for the immediate future. Resource mining was one concept of what end-game might look like, among many others, so once we feel comfortable getting into hard scoping of that content we'll revisit it and see what makes sense with what we've already built. That might not include resource mining, we don't know. We don't want to restrict ourselves by scoping a part of the game we aren't ready to scope yet.

"The important thing is that whatever the end-game content ends up looking like, it's fun and it fits with the rest of the game. Right now we want to finish off the career mode and polish what we have before pressing on. We'll talk more about what end-game looks like once we're closer to the end of development."

Such a statement is true (strictly speaking) even if they've already internally ruled out resource mining, and is something people can accept a lot better. Plus it would set people up for the eventual "we threw out resource mining" by setting up the expectations people have, wrapping all of those suggestions and features into "end-game content" which will be talked about closer to the end of dev. It also avoids committing the dev team one way or the other to a scoping session that honestly might change (yet again) by the time they are actually working on it.

In short, development is all about delivering a product that your customer is happy with... but if you don't know how to manage customer expectations gracefully, it doesn't matter how awesome your product is. Look at Spore. Maxis and EA managed the expectations on that development cycle very poorly, and then rushed to try and meet some moving goalposts. And then failed at it completely.

But on its own, without any context, Spore is an entertaining game.

It's just not what people expected.

Managing expectations is what actually separates "good" developers and companies. You under promise, you over deliver.

SQUAD isn't doing terrible at that, but their product is much better than people think it is, and that's because they're communicating too much or too little (as I said I'm still not sure which). They are the ones that have taken the initiative to build an alpha community to provide feedback, and in that context I'd personally like more information about the overall vision.

But goodness, if we're all having these kinds of arguments, this must be a good game. There's no way that I'd even contemplate these kinds of discussions over most games, and that's because the product that SQUAD has delivered so far has exceeded my expectations. That's hard (very hard) to do consistently.

Edited December 17, 2013 by JordanL

[Ski]

I love this argument. It's just a bunch of people trying to say what is wrong, what is disappointing, blah. blah, god forsaken blah.

Can't you guys for freaking once just get along? This entire community has two freaking sides. One thinks Mechjeb is a monstrosity, other thinks it's fine to use it, one thinks the developers are not open enough, another one does think they are open enough. One thinks stock is the best, the other thinks that mods are the best, and every side has some people who want to argue their point to the point of just pure annoyance.

Who the hell cares about future tech? If the nuclear engine was added, it was freaking added. I don't care if it's a million years old or a million years from the future, if it's added, it's freaking added and unless there is something SO WRONG WITH THAT that it ruins the game, I don't see the point of this argument.

While I agree that Squad has make mistakes with PR (I won't mention, don't bother asking, it will just continue the argument), I don't think you should hold it against them so much.

Just my two cents.

I don't understand what are you talking about. This is the best and most civilized community I've ever seen on internet. Arguments like this are essential to development of KSP.

[LethalDose]

It's very apparent you're upset, LethalDose. How would you have done things differently?

RE: Resources

Proactive communication on major announced features: When it was clear that resources weren't going the way they intended, it's appropriate to tell the community:

"Hey, this isn't working out, it's gonna take more time to develop. The design goals of the feature are X, Y, & Z, and it's not meeting the requirements".

Trying to ignore the problem away breeds these problems. Further, I have seen tons of posts on here about players being upset that they have to read about major features on other sites.

Responsible announcements: If the resource system was so undeveloped that a few weeks of development made it clear that the entire system was so un-fun that it had to be scrapped, then I would never have released the image of resource map in the first place. IF things happened on a time frame even remotely close to what HarvestR stated, then it was beyond premature.

RE: Multiplayer announcement

When members of the chat were asking "what announcement what announcement?" The community manager should have told them. The whole coy thing, "Oh, what? announcement"

If multiplayer was planned the whole time as HarvestR claimed, someone should have at least removed the conflicting information. The way it's been presented, it looks like total BS.

RE: HarvestR's presentations

On the opening:Is a practice run too much to expect when he's opening the Kon!?

I KNOW he's busy. That's not an excuse. The Kon was supposed to be the annual showcase of his project. To be professional would be to treat the showcase of the project as absolutely paramount. Even more important getting the patch out on time. It doesn't take much to get a list of features to talk about ready. Saying "I don't even have a list of features in front of me" when that's what your supposed to be talking is just god-awful presentation. Someone coach the boy for next time.

And if no-one says something, it's not going to get better.

On his closing statements:I would have never have made the statement RE: community expectations about resources. First, SQUAD released the chart, we didn't ask for it. Second, SQUAD had months to address it, and curtail a spiral of expectations when those expectations were way lower.

On today's address: He had a chance to expand what was said with time to prepare. He provided NO expansion of what was said. That's disappointing. If the community was confused about what was said at the Kon, repeating what was said doesn't do any good.

In summary, if SQUAD wants to have a good community relationship, I expect them to show the community respect by communicating in a matter that is:

• Direct
  
• Proactive
  
• Prepared
  

That's what I'd do differently.

I really appreciate you being direct enough to ask, Rowsdower. It's movement in the right direction.

One other thing: after a portion of the community has expressed such a strong interest in resources, I would have at attempted to make it clear they were heard. It would take a statement like "After seeing how strongly the community feels about the resource system, we will do our best to revisit the system".

I will reiterate that I think resources can be fun. It's easier to figure out if the focus of the system is clear.

and on this:

Must suck to be a developer of a game, your wrong no matter what you do, apparently.

Yeah, it can be rough.

But inconsistent and confusing communication with the community makes it way worse, and the onus of responsible communication lies on the developer's. The longer they avoid addressing issues, the worse the community takes it.

Edited December 17, 2013 by vexx32
Posts merged.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

"Multiplayer is something that we've always wanted to put into the game, but for the longest time we didn't know if it would be possible within our development cycle. Now that we're further into alpha, it's clear that our scope can handle multiplayer, which is a feature we feel will strongly improve the experience of the game.

"When it comes to the resource system that we outlined a while ago, we haven't talked about it since because we don't have anything to say. Resource mining, like other 'end-game' content, will be tackled once we have all of the core development to a state we're happy with. There's lots of things that we can do to make the core gameplay more enjoyable first, and that's a better use of our time for the immediate future. Resource mining was one concept of what end-game might look like, among many others, so once we feel comfortable getting into hard scoping of that content we'll revisit it and see what makes sense with what we've already built. That might not include resource mining, we don't know. We don't want to restrict ourselves by scoping a part of the game we aren't ready to scope yet.

"The important thing is that whatever the end-game content ends up looking like, it's fun and it fits with the rest of the game. Right now we want to finish off the career mode and polish what we have before pressing on. We'll talk more about what end-game looks like once we're closer to the end of development."

I generally have been not so approving of most of JordanL's post but this is really money and this kind of phrasing from the get-go would probably have staved off a lot of heat

[metl]

(video link)

I'm looking forward to space pirate battles.

Some people's level of creativity just astounds me! Those are epic AND you managed to actually get them in space without Hyperedit. I'm not really interested in multiplayer, but you sir, are something else! Good form!

[JordanL]

I generally have been not so approving of most of JordanL's post but this is really money and this kind of phrasing from the get-go would probably have staved off a lot of heat

I've worked PR before, and I've also worked as a video game journalist, in addition to my experience as a developer.

[TheRequimen]

Further, I have seen tons of posts on here about players being upset that they have to read about major features on other sites.

This is one of the things I absolutely don't like that has happened lately. It's not any fun having to dig through reddit or watch a hour long twitch broadcasts to figure out what's the latest news on the next update.

I also wonder why most of the major developers stopped posting in the forums, or at least post so little it might literally be weeks between posts now. I know they are busy with the game, but I just feel saddened that C7 posts so little anymore, not to mention the fact that Novasilisko is no longer on the team. He posted the most, and has a substantial number of page visits, over 49k. Just some random thoughts I had.

[chuangatronic]

This is one of the things I absolutely don't like that has happened lately. It's not any fun having to dig through reddit or watch a hour long twitch broadcasts to figure out what's the latest news on the next update.

I also wonder why most of the major developers stopped posting in the forums, or at least post so little it might literally be weeks between posts now. I know they are busy with the game, but I just feel saddened that C7 posts so little anymore, not to mention the fact that Novasilisko is no longer on the team. He posted the most, and has a substantial number of page visits, over 49k. Just some random thoughts I had.

I'm pretty sure they're distancing themselves from the forum for a good reason if you look at the threads related to resources. We've been nothing but vapid, rabid fanboys that are entrenched in one camp or another. I joined here less than 6 months ago over the summer after discovering this wonderful game and I pretty much saw the forum turn from an okay place to gamefaqs in that short period of time.

Too bad, but as LethalDose and others have implied, the damage is done. Feelings have been hurt and disappointment runs deep so we can't really "fix" this very easily. I just hope it all works out in the end and we get a game worth fighting over.

[Stargate525]

Too bad, but as LethalDose and others have implied, the damage is done. Feelings have been hurt and disappointment runs deep so we can't really "fix" this very easily. I just hope it all works out in the end and we get a game worth fighting over.

That's the problem, ironically enough. If this were anything but a fantastic game, we'd all be indifferent enough to not be as vitrolic. But the problem is indeed that there also seems to be a perplexing air of anti-critique in here. This resources thing started as a simple question for information. Then people started rallying to squad against the perceived attack, they in turn felt unnecessarily abused... and the trenches were dug. Both sides feel that squad's devs are safe behind their lines, when in all probability they are somewhere in no-man's land in a foxhole, wondering what the heck happened to Peace in Our Time.

...I'm starting to really warm up to this WWI metaphor going on here. n.n

[LethalDose]

Too bad, but as LethalDose and others have implied, the damage is done.

I'm uncomfortable with the phrasing "the damage has been done" because nothing here is fatal. I don't think the game is tanked, not by a long shot. If I did think that, I wouldn't be trying to make a case for fixing it. Same for the dev-community relationship.

Fixing it means better communication between the devs and community (as I pointed out: either to be proactive and direct, or much more quiet).

I'd also like to see a better explanation of why resources "just weren't fun".

In the meantime, maybe someone can riddle me this: Why are "resources" being described as an end-game mechanic? To me this seems to imply that collection of resources is an end in-and-of itself... Why aren't resources being used to meet goals, making them, in-part, a "mid-game" mechanic.

[Stargate525]

In the meantime, maybe someone can riddle me this: Why are "resources" being described as an end-game mechanic? To me this seems to imply that collection of resources is an end in-and-of itself... Why aren't resources being used to meet goals, making them, in-part, a "mid-game" mechanic.

I think it's because people are assuming a large amount of infrastructure needed to make use of them, which has to be developed. Even to get a refinery on the mun, you have to be able to get a presumably large drill there, power it, have tanks to store it, some way to make use of it...

*shrugs* I'm kind of curious to see what they could do with surface samples as a resource, which pays out science when recovered. Or a device that extracts trace elements depending on the biome you can return for cash, or alien artifacts (reason to visit some of the easter eggs) you can collect and return for reputation.

[GusTurbo]

I think the devs mainly stopped posting after the stupid overreaction over the mere mention of DLC on a stream, since a vocal minority on this forum automatically assumed the worst about the devs' intentions and went ballistic. If I were in their shoes, I'd have stayed away too.

[Tiberion]

That's the problem, ironically enough. If this were anything but a fantastic game, we'd all be indifferent enough to not be as vitrolic. But the problem is indeed that there also seems to be a perplexing air of anti-critique in here. This resources thing started as a simple question for information. Then people started rallying to squad against the perceived attack, they in turn felt unnecessarily abused... and the trenches were dug. Both sides feel that squad's devs are safe behind their lines, when in all probability they are somewhere in no-man's land in a foxhole, wondering what the heck happened to Peace in Our Time.

...I'm starting to really warm up to this WWI metaphor going on here. n.n

Sorry no. Its not two sides with valid points having a heated discussion. Its one side throwing an absolute temper tantrum and having forum riot, and then a bunch of people who hold a wide variety of opinions on the matter telling them to get themselves under control and stop abusing everyone around them due to hurt feelings.

There are PLENTY of us here, myself included who aren't that excited about Multiplayer and who would like to see some form end-game, resource related system eventually. I even think that Squad could have delivered this message better.

And we have managed to deliver said feedback withotu breathlessly describing how much our feelings were hurt, how we can no longer trust Squad with any deicisons anymore, how betrayed they are or any other amount of laughable hyperbole which has NO RELATION to the issue at hand. And all of that noise has absolutely buried any good feedback.

So the next person who feels the need to say something about trust or argue about the decision-making process or how Squad should let us decide or how mad you are.. don't. Go outside and run around, stick your face in a snowbank or down a gopher hole and yell or something until you feel better, and then come back and give actual feedback about what you would like to see, rather than how wrong this is.

[LethalDose]

I think it's because people are assuming a large amount of infrastructure needed to make use of them, which has to be developed. Even to get a refinery on the mun, you have to be able to get a presumably large drill there, power it, have tanks to store it, some way to make use of it...

Okay. I can see that PoV. And one massive way around it... (And yes, I'm being intentionally cryptic. For reasons)

*shrugs* I'm kind of curious to see what they could do with surface samples as a resource, which pays out science when recovered. Or a device that extracts trace elements depending on the biome you can return for cash, or alien artifacts (reason to visit some of the easter eggs) you can collect and return for reputation.

Don't surface samples already pay-out science when recovered?

[stupid_chris]

Okay guys, I'm going to ask you to stay polite here. We had to remove some posts. Either you guys play nice, or you won't play at all.

Infractions may be dispensed without warnings to those who insult, send personal attacks or harass other members.

[TNM]

Ok, so the "old" ressource system wasn't fun. Fine, but why scrap it completeley? How about adapting it now that you know whats not fun about it?

Even during Kerbalcon there was the talk with the astronout who told you that asteroids are still missing ingame (twink twink). Now, lets find another use for asteroids besides deflecting them from earth....hm...oh...yea...ressources!

Either this is a total communication failiure on SQUADS part (=we didn't scrap ressources, just our first implementation) or they really don't see how ressources are what drives space programs (its way too expensive to build everything on earth, famous gravity well problem).

p.s. you really have to get better at communication on the internet FAST, you need a certain skill at beeing precise and vague at the same time covering all your bases without talking obvious BS (= we didn't want that anyways, we always planned that anyways). When large groups of ppl start disecting what you say you better cover your ass.

Edited December 17, 2013 by TNM

[chuangatronic]

I'm uncomfortable with the phrasing "the damage has been done" because nothing here is fatal. I don't think the game is tanked, not by a long shot. If I did think that, I wouldn't be trying to make a case for fixing it. Same for the dev-community relationship.

Fixing it means better communication between the devs and community (as I pointed out: either to be proactive and direct, or much more quiet).

I'd also like to see a better explanation of why resources "just weren't fun".

In the meantime, maybe someone can riddle me this: Why are "resources" being described as an end-game mechanic? To me this seems to imply that collection of resources is an end in-and-of itself... Why aren't resources being used to meet goals, making them, in-part, a "mid-game" mechanic.

Very true, I want to see a better explanation too. It's also true the damage isn't fatal, I meant to say that the a fix isn't impossible but there has been a lot of damage done.

[ArmchairGravy]

Some of us just call the rest "fun".

I don't care one way or another on resources, the core of the game is addicting enough as it is without simulating all the tedious minutiae of real space flight, as far as I am concerned.

I think that it boils down to a few things that all collaborate together to create a poor situation:

In summary, I think it has to do with the fact that SQUAD is giving us details, but not as much vision. If we have details, it should probably be a subset of some vision that we already know about, or we probably shouldn't know about it. I'm honestly not sure if SQUAD is over or under communicating right now.

I totally agree, Aramchek. I do NOT want to have to manage air, food, etc. "Simulating all the tedious minutiae of real space flight" is not what I signed on for!

JordanL, I think you've hit the nail on the head right here. I would like to know what Squad's vision for a completed game looks like. The main web page for KSP describes the game as "create and manage your own space program". With sandbox being complete, they've nailed down the "create" portion. We know science will be a part of "manage", and there's talk of missions and reputation as well. What is the vision for "manage"? Do they even have this vision yet, or are they still throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks in order to get a vision?

[JordanL]

Sorry no. Its not two sides with valid points having a heated discussion. Its one side throwing an absolute temper tantrum and having forum riot, and then a bunch of people who hold a wide variety of opinions on the matter telling them to get themselves under control and stop abusing everyone around them due to hurt feelings.

There are PLENTY of us here, myself included who aren't that excited about Multiplayer and who would like to see some form end-game, resource related system eventually. I even think that Squad could have delivered this message better.

And we have managed to deliver said feedback withotu breathlessly describing how much our feelings were hurt, how we can no longer trust Squad with any deicisons anymore, how betrayed they are or any other amount of laughable hyperbole which has NO RELATION to the issue at hand. And all of that noise has absolutely buried any good feedback.

So the next person who feels the need to say something about trust or argue about the decision-making process or how Squad should let us decide or how mad you are.. don't. Go outside and run around, stick your face in a snowbank or down a gopher hole and yell or something until you feel better, and then come back and give actual feedback about what you would like to see, rather than how wrong this is.

Tiberion, I feel like a major part of what upset you is what I posted, given your comments and the things you're referencing. I'm sorry if that's the case. Perhaps my initial summation (about the VAB) wasn't entirely reflective of what I am concerned about, but I felt that I explained myself fairly well afterward.

I don't feel like I'm part of a side at all. I didn't know there were sides. I'm confused about what we've been told, and feel like a more complete explanation would help, and when one of the community moderators asked me directly for what I would do differently I feel like I explained that without any whining or even displeasure.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding what I'm concerned about or not.

[Tiberion]

Ok, so the "old" ressource system wasn't fun. Fine, but why scrap it completeley? How about adapting it now that you know whats not fun about it?

Even during Kerbalcon there was the talk with the astronout who told you that asteroids are still missing ingame (twink twink). Now, lets find another use for asteroids besides deflecting them from earth....hm...oh...yea...ressources!

Either this is a total communication failiure on SQUADS part (=we didn't scrap ressources, just our first implementation) or they really don't see how ressources are what drives space programs (its way too expensive to build everything on earth, famous gravity well problem).

We don't know that they scrapped anything or what they plan to do with end-game resources in the future, because they specifically have told us they are withholding that information until it is more concrete. PLEASE go read the linked post again.

We do NOT have a right to know about the exact status of each and every planned feature. They told us that the resource mining system as we knew if from the flowchart is no longer under development. IF and WHEN they adapt some of that system into a new system and they feel its ready to be shared with us, they will do so.

How much more can they say on the matter? They don't want to discuss specifics now because we could just end right back here again in a year if whatever they try out ends up not working either, or they have to swap focuses. They'll tell us when they're ready, and that is WELL within their rights as a game developer. And frankly, given how this has all turned out, a very wise one.

Also, space mining has driven exactly zero national space programs this far, beyond the "wouldn't it be cool to harvest resources someday" So while you can hold the opinion that mining is crucial to any space program game, it it not really based in reality and Squad has plenty of design room to work around them should mining not make sense within the gameplay of KSP.

Jordan: I wasn't just talking about the earlier discussion, though I stand by my sentiment that the game is very broad in design already and no one remaining feature can ruin or make it, and its certainly more than just building ships.

Those things I mentioned in my posts are not things I made up. People actually said those things and a bunch of other zany things. Even after a direct explanation from Harvester today these threads have revolved around the negative aspects, how the game is broken, how people don't trust Squad, how WE should act to "fix' things (Hint: do nothing) and on and on. Its disrespectful and its burying the actual issue at hand - what we'd like to see as high-level gameplay - under a mountain of bad feelings and misguided attempts to run Squads gamedesign for them.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Tiberion
to address Jordan as well

[Stargate525]

Sorry no. Its not two sides with valid points having a heated discussion. Its one side throwing an absolute temper tantrum and having forum riot, and then a bunch of people who hold a wide variety of opinions on the matter telling them to get themselves under control and stop abusing everyone around them due to hurt feelings.

Tiberion, I've debated you all weekend. Lean back, step into the shoes of the people you're talking about for a moment. Read what you just wrote up there.

It doesn't matter whether you're right or not, or how angry they are or how unreasonable it is. They are angry. And calling it a temper tantrum and them rioters and abusers is NOT going to make them sit down and say 'oh yes, how silly of me.'

Don't surface samples already pay-out science when recovered?

Well yes. But what instead of just grabbing a generic 'surface sample from X' we could use a drill to grab subsurface samples, or a laser spectrometer to vaporize a sample in orbit and transmit that data. And, it's stored as oxidizer or liquidfuel or any other thing. Insert 'surface sample' resource, hit it with enough power in a specialized part, and reap your rewards.

The only problem is keeping straight which dirt is from where.

[allmhuran]

I think I grok where Harv is coming from, and I agree with the reasoning in the post. Specifically, I think Harv totally nailed it here:

You may notice it's even been mentioned several times here that the key thing is that people feel that once you land on another planet, there isn't much else to do. That does not imply the solution to that is to get out the shovels and start mining

So, Squad absolutely aware of the kind of thing we'd all like to see, and it's absolutely correct that while to many people resources seemed like an obvious way forward, its not necessarily the only way forward. Good show.

I am slightly more concerned about this one though:

We aren’t ready to disclose any new ideas now because we’re focused on Career Mode and anything we bring up now could end up getting scrapped later and we’ll have the same issue we have now

The "issue we have now" has not happened as a result of scrapping something that was previously announced. It's happened because of the following:

1) Resources were presented as being worked on as an end game, goal mechanic.

2) Nothing else has been announced that would provide this same kind of mechanic.

If the announcement had been "Hey, we don't think resources are working very well as a goal-reward mechanic, so here's some things we're looking at instead to do the same job" I think the community response would have been vastly, vastly more favourable.

So don't get blindsided and think that this whole event has demonstrated that early communication is bad, that would be to misinterpret what's going on.

Early communication is good, and you absolutely should look to engage the community as early as possible with respect to these "new ideas" mentioned here. It doesn't matter if they change, just let the community churn them over. With thousands of dedicated players discussing them I have no doubt that some good suggestions will surface. Squad can pick and choose whichever ones they like and add them into their brainstorming nice and early while it is still easy to change things.

Edited December 17, 2013 by allmhuran

[JordanL]

Jordan: I wasn't just talking about the earlier discussion, though I stand by my sentiment that the game is very broad in design already and no one remaining feature can ruin or make it, and its certainly more than just building ships.

Those things I mentioned in my posts are not things I made up. People actually said those things and a bunch of other zany things. Even after a direct explanation from Harvester today these threads have revolved around the negative aspects, how the game is broken, how people don't trust Squad, how WE should act to "fix' things (Hint: do nothing) and on and on. Its disrespectful and its burying the actual issue at hand - what we'd like to see as high-level gameplay - under a mountain of bad feelings and misguided attempts to run Squads gamedesign for them.

Fair.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to say this game is broken. This game is the absolute gold standard of alpha releases. Seriously, when was the last time an alpha release game was this well built and had this kind of community mod support?

i can see how that would be frustrating, especially for someone who has invested a lot of time in building mods for the game as well (something I'm failing at spectacularly myself so far :/).

[Stargate525]

Early communication is good, and you absolutely should look to engage the community as early as possible with respect to these "new ideas" mentioned here. It doesn't matter if they change, just let the community churn them over. With thousands of dedicated players discussing them I have no doubt that some good suggestions will surface. Squad can pick and choose whichever ones they like and add them into their brainstorming nice and early while it is still easy to change things.

This. A hundred times this. There is no shame in asking 'what do you guys think,' and no guilt in saying 'interesting, but not what we're looking for.' We're going to give them our opinions either way. With more info earlier we'll be able to actually be more helpful.