KerbalKon Announcements

[The Lone Wolfling]

*sigh*

This is starting to remind me of Minecraft, and not in a good way. Don't work on a feature for a while, get frustrated, and switch to some new and more flashy feature without dealing with the old one first.

If Squad is worried about resources being too grindy, release a semi-official mod with the content and see what people think. But don't just abandon it, please. It's such an essential prerequisite of so many other things.

[Themohawkninja]

*sigh*

This is starting to remind me of Minecraft, and not in a good way. Don't work on a feature for a while, get frustrated, and switch to some new and more flashy feature without dealing with the old one first.

If Squad is worried about resources being too grindy, release a semi-official mod with the content and see what people think. But don't just abandon it, please. It's such an essential prerequisite of so many other things.

They aren't abandoning resources altogether, they are abandoning the way they were going to implement it.

[JordanL]

While I don't quite agree with the way regex has phrased his point, I'm going to back him up on it. I was one of those who got into the game after 0.18 was released, which I believe was around the same time resources were first announced as well. After a while, when it became clear that resources weren't coming as soon as the community had at first anticipated, I decided to check out the Kethane mod.

Again, Majiir is a fantastic programmer and mod developer, and at first I was enthralled by the fact that I could run ISRU operations around the solar system, but eventually the whole process of watching a tiny dot slowly trace out a series of tiny lines on a tiny window so that I could find a decent mining site started grating on me,* as it felt like the whole process was too tedious and eating up valuable game time I could have been spending working on other projects. That sense of tedium ultimately prompted me to give up on the mod, although I've flirted with reinstalling it time to time simply to have some way of mining resources.

I'm all for resource extraction and exploitation to be added to the game in some fashion eventually -- and, truth be told, I'm more in favor of it than I am multiplayer, since I don't use multiplayer modes on most games I play anyway -- but I don't believe the Kethane model is necessarily the best model for the developers to copy for the stock game.

* As did the need to "refresh" the map periodically because the deposit sizes seemed oddly small, but that's tangential to the main issue.

As critical as I'm being in this thread, I'll have to agree with this. Kethane is a mod that created something where nothing was, but it isn't the best or final implementation.

My issue is much more that SQUAD seems to think the VAB/SPH are the only parts of the game where players should spend their time, and that the rest of the game is a pass/fail performance test of all the time you spend in the VAB.

That isn't how people play the game, that isn't how people want to play the game, and if that's SQUAD's vision of the game kindly wake up and discard it.

[The Lone Wolfling]

They aren't abandoning resources altogether, they are abandoning the way they were going to implement it.

I hope.

But the number of things in Minecraft that were shelved and then forgotten about...

[Stargate525]

They aren't abandoning resources altogether, they are abandoning the way they were going to implement it.

That two people in the community can read the same statement and draw such differing conclusions is, I think, an indication of just how much we need someone on the dev side to be able to sit down with them, understand their position, and then relay it to us. Nothing against the devs at all, but none of them seem to possess that kind of PR talent.

[Themohawkninja]

I hope.

But the number of things in Minecraft that were shelved and then forgotten about...

Well this is KSP, not Minecraft, which is developed by Squad, not Mojang AB.

[Tiberion]

As critical as I'm being in this thread, I'll have to agree with this. Kethane is a mod that created something where nothing was, but it isn't the best or final implementation.

My issue is much more that SQUAD seems to think the VAB/SPH are the only parts of the game where players should spend their time, and that the rest of the game is a pass/fail performance test of all the time you spend in the VAB.

That isn't how people play the game, that isn't how people want to play the game, and if that's SQUAD's vision of the game kindly wake up and discard it.

You need to stop saying this RIGHT NOW. Its blatently false. Proper construction and planning of fuel loads in the VAB IS a vital part of the game, but so is proper execution of your flightplan and dealing with contingencies as they come up. There is LITERALLY an entire system out there to explore, and even with JUST the basic science play we have now you MUST travel to a bunch of different zones in a bunch of different places to unlock all of your parts and fill out the new science library. And that is not counting the other 75% of the career mode that is yet to be added.

And resource and mining is NOT a part of current or past space programs, no one has brought back or used any extra-planetary resources beyond a few moon rocks 50 years ago. Sometime in the not-too-close future we may be able to use resources on Mars. MAYBE in our lifetimes. And maybe we might mine an asteroid if the capability develops. But these are THEORETICAL things right now. So please kindly quit implying that Squad is somehow failing to capture the 'true essence' of space flight without tacking on a mining system, because its false.

[chuangatronic]

< sarcasm >

How can one man do it right and the whole company do it wrong?

Clearly you're mistaken, good sir!

SQUAD tried. At least one way, maybe even TWO!

The people at SQUAD clearly decided that it wasn't fun. So the way Kethane is implemented must clearly be either:

1. Not fun
   
2. Just a plain wrong
   

Because if there was a right and fun way, it would have to have been the one way (or one of the maybe even two ways) that SQUAD tried it.

< / sarcasm >

Yeah, okay, whatever. I don't see how this is different than the KerbalKon Closing Ceremony statement.

I'm going to say this straight up. You're being childish and destructive to the community/developer relationship. I've seen a couple of your posts over the past couple days and they've been nothing but toxic. Project development sometimes means taking things in a different direction and letting your team walk away from something that isn't going to work out. I've had the rug pulled out from under my feet during projects and the results from the new direction come out just as good, if not better, than my vision. You can be disappointed in Squad, but you have to respect that they tried resources one way and was barking up the wrong tree. Let's just hope that they find a resources solution that they are satisfied with.

Now my thing with resources is that they are a very large part of human space exploration.

You're kidding me right? The largest part of human space exploration is political posturing. Resource gathering has never been anywhere NEAR the forefront of space exploration until the recent commercialization of space flight. Yeah, people might claim asteroid capture as a theoretical stretch goal, but seriously? You'd be delusional to believe we could have space programs gathering extraplanetary resources in this generation. NASA doesn't even plan on manned mars flights until 2070 or something like that.

Themohawkninja made a good point, this is future tech related so I guess resource exploration is perfectly plausible if you want to say so.

Edited December 17, 2013 by chuangatronic

[Themohawkninja]

That two people in the community can read the same statement and draw such differing conclusions is, I think, an indication of just how much we need someone on the dev side to be able to sit down with them, understand their position, and then relay it to us. Nothing against the devs at all, but none of them seem to possess that kind of PR talent.

Admittedly, I am trying to read inbetween the lines.

Harvester isn't very good about giving blunt yes/no answers to things. I ask if something is shelved, and he replies by saying how they might come up with a more streamlined way of "covering the bases (pun intended)". Just tell me "yes, resource mining is still on the things-to-do list", "no, resource mining is out-of-the-question", or "the fate of resource mining is still being discussed". Is it really that hard to answer?

[Themohawkninja]

You need to stop saying this RIGHT NOW. Its blatently false. Proper construction and planning of fuel loads in the VAB IS a vital part of the game, but so is proper execution of your flightplan and dealing with contingencies as they come up. There is LITERALLY an entire system out there to explore, and even with JUST the basic science play we have now you MUST travel to a bunch of different zones in a bunch of different places to unlock all of your parts and fill out the new science library. And that is not counting the other 75% of the career mode that is yet to be added.

And resource and mining is NOT a part of current or past space programs, no one has brought back or used any extra-planetary resources beyond a few moon rocks 50 years ago. Sometime in the not-too-close future we may be able to use resources on Mars. MAYBE in our lifetimes. And maybe we might mine an asteroid if the capability develops. But these are THEORETICAL things right now. So please kindly quit implying that Squad is somehow failing to capture the 'true essence' of space flight without tacking on a mining system, because its false.

Squad has already implemented such "not-too-close future" parts. That is what the nuclear engine is, and Squad has already stated that sci-fi elements are a plausible thing to expect for the vanilla game.

[DominusNovus]

They aren't abandoning resources altogether, they are abandoning the way they were going to implement it.

Do we know that for sure? Do we know what they're planning?

The response was very noncommittal and vague. The sort of thing a politician would say.

[Themohawkninja]

Do we know that for sure? Do we know what they're planning?

The response was very noncommittal and vague. The sort of thing a politician would say.

As I said, I interpreted the reply I got from HarV that way. I could be wrong though.

[Stargate525]

Harvester isn't very good about giving blunt yes/no answers to things. I ask if something is shelved, and he replies by saying how they might come up with a more streamlined way of "covering the bases (pun intended)". Just tell me "yes, resource mining is still on the things-to-do list", "no, resource mining is out-of-the-question", or "the fate of resource mining is still being discussed". Is it really that hard to answer?

And ironically, one of the things the community was pretty in-line on that was a definite no was apparently one of the main goals from the beginning...

Yes. Communication, and the quality of the communication, is becoming a little bit worrisome to me.

Which reminds me. Squad, Mods...

If you're going to insist that multiplayer 'has always been a goal of the development team and has always been on the plans...' You MIGHT want to consider revising the 'what not to suggest' thread sticky to reflect that. It currently says what you've been saying to us prior to last week, which was that it wasn't going to be in the main game, so don't even suggest it.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Specialist290
Merging sequential posts by same user.

[JordanL]

You need to stop saying this RIGHT NOW. Its blatently false. Proper construction and planning of fuel loads in the VAB IS a vital part of the game, but so is proper execution of your flightplan and dealing with contingencies as they come up. There is LITERALLY an entire system out there to explore, and even with JUST the basic science play we have now you MUST travel to a bunch of different zones in a bunch of different places to unlock all of your parts and fill out the new science library. And that is not counting the other 75% of the career mode that is yet to be added.

And resource and mining is NOT a part of current or past space programs, no one has brought back or used any extra-planetary resources beyond a few moon rocks 50 years ago. Sometime in the not-too-close future we may be able to use resources on Mars. MAYBE in our lifetimes. And maybe we might mine an asteroid if the capability develops. But these are THEORETICAL things right now. So please kindly quit implying that Squad is somehow failing to capture the 'true essence' of space flight without tacking on a mining system, because its false.

As I said, (perhaps I should have bolded?), my statement about SQUAD's direction to the game is not specifically about the resources, for many of the reasons you are citing. It is the culmination of many things they have done and said.

That's just my impression, it can't be blatantly false. And I love designing just the right craft in the VAB then executing it. I mentioned earlier that this game is incredibly fun, I just don't like the direction I'm seeing from SQUAD. If you disagree that's fine.

They have said that they are discarding it for something better, that they didn't like how grindy it was, that there will be "end-game" content... okay, I trust that. But they are simply saying what's not going to be there, not what is, and the things SQUAD has said will/won't be there in the future, that suddenly gets reversed in a future update, makes me question how much I should trust anything that doesn't have a release plan already in place.

And that's besides the point that it may very well be 2016 before 1.0 is done and all these features that add "end-game fun" are there.

I don't think SQUAD is doing poorly, I'm just not sure I agree with their vision because as it stands right now their vision is cluttered, confusing and untrustworthy. I certainly can trust that they'll do a good job at whatever they do, because everything they have done has been a good job of what they've set out to do.

So now that I've expanded my more glib, general statement into something a little more explanatory, should I still stop saying it? Because I kind of feel like I'm just expressing a personal opinion that is entirely valid with respect to past events and current statements.

[_Aramchek_]

Don't forget the SPH. But yeah, I kind of agree. The building is the game, the rest is just performance metric.

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.

[Specialist290]

If you're going to insist that multiplayer 'has always been a goal of the development team and has always been on the plans...' You MIGHT want to consider revising the 'what not to suggest' thread sticky to reflect that. It currently says what you've been saying to us prior to last week, which was that it wasn't going to be in the main game, so don't even suggest it.

For the record, to quote the What Not To Suggest introductory segment:

This is a list of features that are commonly suggested, already planned or denied. These subjects have been addressed by the developers and will either be implemented at some point or not at all. In either case suggesting them again is of no use and threads doing so will be closed.

In particular, multiplayer functionality was on that list initially because it was an extremely common suggestion at the time, and discussions tended to be near-constant rehashes of the same topics, issues, and ideas ad infinitum. As it is now a confirmed feature, it will remain on the list, as suggesting it be added would be redundant.

EDIT: That being said, the footnote indicating that it's not planned for inclusion in the full release of the game has been removed.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Specialist290

[Stargate525]

For the record, to quote the What Not To Suggest introductory segment:

...

And to quote the footnotes of the same segment...

...Ah. You've removed that little asterisk from in front of the multiplayer. Good on you.

Carry on!

[Tiberion]

Squad has already implemented such "not-too-close future" parts. That is what the nuclear engine is, and Squad has already stated that sci-fi elements are a plausible thing to expect for the vanilla game.

...

The NERVA was developed in the 60s and 70s as a possible extension to the Saturn rocket to go to Mars. it is not future tech, it is current tech that no one really wants to use. Other Nuclear power sources of a smaller scale are widely used in exploration.

"Sci fi" stuff may be possible, and I am not opposed to it. But my point about them not being a crucial thing stands. There is no need for Hyperbole.

And once again the linked article says they have plans for more end-game "go out and get it" sort of things as the game nears completion. The over-the-top exaggerated arguments about mining suddenly being so important that it will ruin the game if its not done immediately just boggles the mind.

You have made your opinion known: You liked the idea of mining. EVERYONE heard you, now try relaxing and letting the game develop some more, instead of creating an echo-chamber of the same argument over and over.

I don't think SQUAD is doing poorly, I'm just not sure I agree with their vision because as it stands right now their vision is cluttered, confusing and untrustworthy. I certainly can trust that they'll do a good job at whatever they do, because everything they have done has been a good job of what they've set out to do.

Which is it?

And I only told you to stop saying that the game was "only the VAB" with everything else just being a test. That was hyperbole IN THE EXTREME and just incorrect in every way. Don't say that, opinion or not.

Argh... this was supposed to be an edit? what happened there?

Edited December 17, 2013 by Specialist290
Posts merged at user's implied request.

[Themohawkninja]

...

The NERVA was developed in the 60s and 70s as a possible extension to the Saturn rocket to go to Mars. it is not future tech, it is current tech that no one really wants to use. Other Nuclear power sources of a smaller scale are widely used in exploration.

"Sci fi" stuff may be possible, and I am not opposed to it. But my point about them not being a crucial thing stands. There is no need for Hyperbole.

And once again the linked article says they have plans for more end-game "go out and get it" sort of things as the game nears completion. The over-the-top exaggerated arguments about mining suddenly being so important that it will ruin the game if its not done immediately just boggles the mind.

You have made your opinion known: You liked the idea of mining. EVERYONE heard you, now try relaxing and letting the game develop some more, instead of creating an echo-chamber of the same argument over and over.

Well yes, I understand that the NERVA engine was tested, but it was never put into use, so for all intents and purposes, you could argue that it's future tech.

For the record, I am part of the KSP community, and have full right to respectably assert my opinion, and defend it as I see fit. I am not trying to create any sort of argument ad infinium, but just to see that people understand my opinion if they don't understand it initially, just as we all wanted Squad to explain their opinion so that everyone understands it.

[rodion_herrera]

You need to stop saying this RIGHT NOW. Its blatently false. Proper construction and planning of fuel loads in the VAB IS a vital part of the game, but so is proper execution of your flightplan and dealing with contingencies as they come up. There is LITERALLY an entire system out there to explore, and even with JUST the basic science play we have now you MUST travel to a bunch of different zones in a bunch of different places to unlock all of your parts and fill out the new science library. And that is not counting the other 75% of the career mode that is yet to be added.

And resource and mining is NOT a part of current or past space programs, no one has brought back or used any extra-planetary resources beyond a few moon rocks 50 years ago. Sometime in the not-too-close future we may be able to use resources on Mars. MAYBE in our lifetimes. And maybe we might mine an asteroid if the capability develops. But these are THEORETICAL things right now. So please kindly quit implying that Squad is somehow failing to capture the 'true essence' of space flight without tacking on a mining system, because its false.

I completely agree with this, and you have hit the nail in the head of what I have always wanted to say re resources. But then this highlights on the demographics of KSP users--there are simply those who see KSP as a "realistic" type of space simulator, but there are others who see it more "far flung future sci-fi" like say, StarCraft/EVE/Freelancer. So the way I see it, right now, Squads development decisions seem to favor more the "realistic space sim" crowd with their recent decisions for the flow of future development, rather than cater to more futuristic type of space missions. And I don't think those two parties will ever see eye to eye on this issue--which is why Squad will eventually be forced to pick a "side", based on doability of a particular kind of gameplay.

[JordanL]

Which is it?

And I only told you to stop saying that the game was "only the VAB" with everything else just being a test. That was hyperbole IN THE EXTREME and just incorrect in every way. Don't say that, opinion or not.

Argh... this was supposed to be an edit? what happened there?

I never said that the VAB was the entire game, I said that the game is being designed so that the VAB is the core game mechanic. That has nothing to do with whether or not other parts are challenging or polished.

As for the quote, as I thought was pretty clear, I am saying that their statements have been untrustworthy but their production has been reliable.

Frankly, I'm more excited about performance improvements coming in 0.23 than I would have been about a whole resource system being unveiled. But just in case, I'll say it again:

My statements are not predicated on any resource system specifically, I see it as indicative of a larger vision that I'm not sure how to characterize and I'm not sure if I personally agree with.

But generally I agree, I've had my say, i don't have anything further to add to this discussion.

[panfish5]

Cant we all just calm down and enjoy the game? I think everyone is over reacting about resources its not like the game is horrible without it and if it is just that horrible maybe you can get off the forums and quit ksp and do us all a favor. I just hope Squad stands its ground and doesn't succumb to the community.

[entaran]

Don't worry Jordan. people just think it's their god given right to whinge about a feature in a game they paid $15 for.

I paid some money, now I get to complain. Loudly. About how everyone else is wrong and my vision is perfect.

Pretty much sums up this thread.

[Merinsan]

Admittedly, I am trying to read inbetween the lines.

Harvester isn't very good about giving blunt yes/no answers to things. I ask if something is shelved, and he replies by saying how they might come up with a more streamlined way of "covering the bases (pun intended)". Just tell me "yes, resource mining is still on the things-to-do list", "no, resource mining is out-of-the-question", or "the fate of resource mining is still being discussed". Is it really that hard to answer?

I suspect the reason we are not getting a straight answer is because they don't want to commit either way.

Just 1 week ago, multiplayer was out of the question. Now it's a publicized goal.

If at some point the game is complete, but still seems to be lacking something, they may well implement resource mining, but I don't think it's a priority.

[LethalDose]

Project development sometimes means taking things in a different direction and letting your team walk away from something that isn't going to work out.

*GASP* Is THAT what project development means!? Thank Jeb you were here to clear that up for me.

Yeah, I get that plans change. But it's not the community's fault that the developers announced a feature, then tried to ignore it into irrelevance, then act shocked when players get upset it had been canned.

You can be disappointed in Squad

I am, but it's such a weight off my mind knowing that I have your permission, now.

I was concerned.

No, seriously.

but you have to respect that they tried resources one way and was barking up the wrong tree. Let's just hope that they find a resources solution that they are satisfied with.

Then why announce a feature that they hadn't thought through?

Why not say multiplayer had been in the scope since the beginning instead of conflicting information on the site?

Why were the community manager and someone else on the team (A dev? I srsly can't remember who) directing people to an external site during KerbalKon, when they were asking about the multi-player announcement?

Why not prepare a simple list on paper about what you're going to talk about on your web-cast at the opening event of your own game?

srsly, though, don't answer those points above. It's rhetorical. I'm trying to demonstrate that SQUAD has repeatedly dropped the ball on communicating with the community.

If SQUAD would decide to either be forthcoming OR keep things quiet, either way would be massive improvement. Seriously, for social media/gaming company that apparently takes pride in listening to their community, they really don't seem to do a good job with communication.

And don't try to claim that my statements regarding HarvestR are attacks or toxic. I haven't said anything untrue, and when the lead on project of this scope does that poor of a job of communicating, it's sufficient reason for concern. Don't wag your finger at me, wag it at SQUAD. It's their responsibility to make sure he was prepared, not mine.

and finally...

I'm going to say this straight up. You're being childish and destructive to the community/developer relationship. I've seen a couple of your posts over the past couple days and they've been nothing but toxic.

Until your title includes "moderator", I don't give two kerbals about your opinion of my posts' tone/content/POV etc.

I've as much right as you do to present my opinion in whatever manner I please so long as I keep my posts within the forum rules. You're just going to have to suck it up and live what I write.

Or totally ignore it. Your choice. I seriously could not care less.

Besides, if you already think so little of my intelligence that you think your patronization explanation regarding project development or my tone would be informative, then I really don't see how you can believe that anything I say, regardless of tone, could possibly have any impact.