KerbalKon Announcements

[LethalDose]

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.

And apparently always has been!

[entaran]

LethalDose... have you ever played EVE Online or dealt with CCP Games?

The levels of communication here are similar, I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over feature changes when KSP is still obviously in Beta and features are being added, changed and removed about once a month.

I mean yeah, if KSP was 1.0 full release and they said "We're making a DLC/Free Expansion with xyz (resources etc)" then they release a DLC with female kerbals and an extra planet instead then sure, this sort of storm should evolve but for a project that is headed up by all of what, 10 developers? I don't think that people should really be screaming blue murder like they are right now over resources or any other feature/plan.

As for multiplayer, it doesn't make any sense to release a single player game in todays online world unless it's a solid RPG or simulator with absolutely no scope. The fact that they have about-faced on this idea is probably due to the excellent work of the alpha multiplayer mod showing that it is indeed possible. And given the precedents already set, I'd suggest that the dev of that mod may have received (or shortly will) a job offer from SQUAD.

[JordanL]

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.

Yeah, if I thought my vision was perfect I'd be developing a game to implement it (I'm a programmer).

SQUAD has a PR problem with communication, not a problem with the game. 90% of people just play the game though and never really engage the community, so that doesn't have to a focal point for it to be a successful game. They are hedging a lot, which suggests that they don't have a clear vision one way or the other for a whole lot of things. Which is sort of expected in an alpha product, it would just avoid a lot of this if they said that explicitly (which they sort of did with the comment about MMO's).

I don't think it matters too much though in the end... the mod community is so strong that I don't think there will ever really be missing features, it's just some will be implemented less optimally because they are done in mods instead of the core game.

I don't see KSP as a "sci-fi themed" game, and I don't think stock ever will be. That's actually good, IMO, but I'd like to have that option, which is why I'm brushing up on my C# and 3D modeling to make my own feature-complete sci-fi stock extension. We'll see how far I get with that.

[Rowsdower]

SQUAD has a PR problem with communication.

Hi, JordanL. Would you mind elaborating on this a bit please? What is your issue with the PR-side communication and what do you think could be done to improve?

[LethalDose]

LethalDose... have you ever played EVE Online or dealt with CCP Games?

The levels of communication here are similar, I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms over feature changes when KSP is still obviously in Beta and features are being added, changed and removed about once a month.

I mean yeah, if KSP was 1.0 full release and they said "We're making a DLC/Free Expansion with xyz (resources etc)" then they release a DLC with female kerbals and an extra planet instead then sure, this sort of storm should evolve but for a project that is headed up by all of what, 10 developers? I don't think that people should really be screaming blue murder like they are right now over resources or any other feature/plan.

As for multiplayer, it doesn't make any sense to release a single player game in todays online world unless it's a solid RPG or simulator with absolutely no scope. The fact that they have about-faced on this idea is probably due to the excellent work of the alpha multiplayer mod showing that it is indeed possible. And given the precedents already set, I'd suggest that the dev of that mod may have received (or shortly will) a job offer from SQUAD.

I've tried to play EVE, and I couldn't get on board with. It's not a style I like.

Because a different company has worse practices doesn't make this companies practices sufficient. SQUADS' screw ups are their own screw-ups.

For clarity:

I'm disappointed that resources aren't in the game, but what has made me upset is how SQUAD has handled it.

[Rowsdower]

I've tried to play EVE, and I couldn't get on board with. It's not a style I like.

Because a different company has worse practices doesn't make this companies practices sufficient. SQUADS' screw ups are their own screw-ups.

For clarity:

I'm disappointed that resources aren't in the game, but what has made me upset is how SQUAD has handled it.

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

[Ski]

HarvesteR's post from other thread:

"I think there is a large amount of inaccurate overlap here between what the top-end of KSP gameplay needs and what the old resources system was supposed to add.

I agree that once you master the challenge of spaceflight and are able to get anywhere and pretty much do anything, you start to feel there isn't much left to do. This is true of any game. However, most games at that point just end and you get to watch the credits roll by. With KSP, you are free to continue playing until you've exhausted all possibilities, and beyond. This "end-game lull" is a frequent issue with sandbox games.

However, I disagree that resource mining-- especially the idea for resource mining that we proposed last year-- is the best solution to improve end-game activities. There are a lot of other cool things that we could add there, that would be a lot more interesting and fun, and that wouldn't require an overly complicated and honestly, very tedious system to give you new cool things to do.

What those things are aren't something we want to discuss yet. For all we know at this point, whatever new idea we disclose now might end up turning into a new 'resources', that later needs to get scrapped, so let's not get into that discussion now.

One thing that needs to be made clear though, is that a game in Early Access, while it shares a lot in common with the usual MMO-style development process (without any regard to payment model either, that's an entirely separate and off topic thing here), it is different in that while the MMO is essentially complete from the start, and receives new updates to extend the content for players who have done everything, the Early Access game is still incomplete, and must devote its development time to adding features that maybe might not seem important to experienced players, but that make it easier to be picked up by new players, or that make the overall game experience more complete even if that doesn't make it more lengthy.

That's not saying we won't ever add more things to do on the end-game level... However, 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. Especially if you were supposed to remember to pack the shovels in the first place and didn't realize it until after touchdown.

My point is, that old plan we had for resources is most certainly not the right solution. It doesn't fit organically with the rest of the game, it requires you to remember to attach a bunch of single-purpose parts to a vessel (forgetting any of which would render a mission a complete failure), and really, that's just not how we want the game to play out.

I think this is the crux of the issue then. The resources plan being shelved is, by all means, a good thing. It wasn't any fun once we got down to it, so we're not losing anything that was worth keeping here. However, that does not mean there isn't a need (and budding plans) for more end-game activities. I'm just saying that old plan for resource mining wasn't it.

Cheers

Last edited by HarvesteR; Today at 12:56. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I figured it out !!!!! You want to start multiplayer Duna Kerbal Football League!!!!! That's what this is all about.

Seriously though, I think that most of us that are disappointed with shelving current resource program and focusing on multiplayer in near future after career is that we fail to grasp what possible endgame do you have in mind assuming that we are not interested in MP.

What else than elaborate way to acquire resources and probably colonizing planets and moons and in distant future also maybe different solar systems would be equally engaging?

Archeology and science? Finding ancient or modern civilizations ?

Here is a good one: dynamic events like preventing comets or asteroids to collide with Kerbin etc.

I don't mind multiplayer but the only way I could enjoy it is a IVA simulation style with far more complex ship managing system than we currently have that requires more than one kerbonaut to operate.

Of course there is a possibility that before release this game is meant to be something far different than it is now and current gameplay will be an afterthought. ( those ICBM jokes come to mind)

Lastly, by hinting over the years which was supported by this forum's community, that multiplayer has small chance to be implemented and switching your design direction towards it without any proper communication with fan base, you did hurt your credibility a lot. Things will not be the same, we will not believe you easily anymore. If you want to treat us like expendable assets our loyalty will diminish. I urge you: don't be that company.

Thank you for your time if you read it all.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Ski

[DaveofDefeat]

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

[JordanL]

Hi, JordanL. Would you mind elaborating on this a bit please? What is your issue with the PR-side communication and what do you think could be done to improve?

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

- The KSP community in general has fantastic communication and collaboration amongst each other, and SQUAD maintains an excellent community space for such things.

- Information about upcoming features and releases has (historically) been almost entirely absent. SQUAD has been changing this a bit (0.23 being a notable example) but not significantly.

- There are many different styles of play in this game, and SQUAD is trying to support them all. They are doing a decent job of that, but some of them (such as sci-fi themed vs. realistic near future) are mutually exclusive, and at least in all communication so far, SQUAD has not even noted that they understand this (which they obviously do). I think it's pretty clear that SQUAD likes and is building for the realistic near future scenario, but creative direction in general has been mostly uncommunicated.

- As a developer, I know that part of this has to boil down to the fact that this is an alpha game in pre-release, and if SQUAD was spending that much time on such general direction, it would be difficult to get work done.

- However, there needs to be more finality to things that come from development. If there is a future feature set that is outlined by dev to the public, it should be because some version of it will definitely be there. Likewise, if something is removed from scope, that decision needs to be communicated promptly and simply. At issue with this particular update, and the resulting thread, is that it's clear from the update the dev team has known resources (in their previous form) were out for a while. This communication doesn't tell us 1. why that communication to the community was delayed or 2. what sort of conceptual replacement is envisioned. It should have included one of those, or not been announced at all, IMO. Most people that are displeased would probably have no issue if the probable replacement goal/mechanic was outlined at the same time, or it was communicated briefly early on when it was figured out.

- The communication needs to be more honest about the fact that some things can be very cool, but out of scope. Things like "multiplayer can't be done" never should have come out. "Multiplayer doesn't fit our scope right now" would have been better.

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.

[razark]

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.

Not really. It's 40-50 year old tech that's been demonstrated as working. It's simply that no one uses it.

Steam locomotives were built at one time, but no one uses them now. That doesn't mean they're a future technology. It's just an unused technology.

[panfish5]

- As a developer,

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

[Themohawkninja]

Not really. It's 40-50 year old tech that's been demonstrated as working. It's simply that no one uses it.

Steam locomotives were built at one time, but no one uses them now. That doesn't mean they're a future technology. It's just an unused technology.

But the NERVA engine was never used, unlike the steam locomotive.

The upcoming RAPIER engines are probably the best example of such near-future technologies though.

[Kurtvw]

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

That is not just a problem for this game, or even just for games generally. It is true in all programming. Your own vision isn't as awesome as they want it. Then they tell you what is they want, so you code that, and then it turns out they actually don't want what they thought. And around you go again...

Edited December 17, 2013 by Kurtvw

[Stargate525]

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 just had to do some serious thinking on this... and I can't tell either.

I think they might be sidecommunicating. People here have a point; I've been satisfied with far less info from other alpha games. I think the amount we actually hear from the devs might be spot-on (weekly updates, occasional blogs, etc.), but the stuff we're hearing is failing to tell us what we want to know.

[razark]

But the NERVA engine was never used, unlike the steam locomotive.

No, but it was designed, built, tested, and very well could have been used decades ago.

The hydrogen bomb was designed, built, and tested long ago, and never used. Would you classify it as a future technology?

[Themohawkninja]

No, but it was designed, built, tested, and very well could have been used decades ago.

The hydrogen bomb was designed, built, and tested long ago, and never used. Would you classify it as a future technology?

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.

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

[Stargate525]

No, but it was designed, built, tested, and very well could have been used decades ago.

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.

[Monkthespy]

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.

[rodion_herrera]

As to vision, I am not in doubt of the kind of vision Squad has, for the future of KSP. I mean, HarvesteR was an Orbiter user/affecionado. That alone tells a lot.

[Stargate525]

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.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, summer of hope, winter of despair...

But in all seriousness, I get you. I'm actually a little jealous that you don't have an entrenched bunker on one side or the other. How's the view? I can't see underneath this helmet and asbestos suit.

[Kurtvw]

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.

That nuke thing pertains to weapons, not engines.. Curiosity runs on nuclear power, as does Cassini.the treaty forbids nuclear weapons. Thinking a little more, both Voyagers use a nuclear power system...

before anyone leaps on me, yeah, I know they don't have nuclear thrusters, they are using nuclear power to create electricty.

But a reactor in space is a reactor in space...

Anyhow, I'm not getting in the 'future/past' discussion, just pointing out an inaccuracy..

Edited December 17, 2013 by Kurtvw
Expanding what 'power' means -- 2nd edit adding voyagers..

[Landwalker]

I'm actually a little jealous that you don't have an entrenched bunker on one side or the other. How's the view?

For this particular bunkerless forumite: Extraordinarily confusing, bewildering, and a bit discouraging/disheartening.

[Stargate525]

For this particular bunkerless forumite: Extraordinarily confusing, bewildering, and a bit discouraging/disheartening.

Just like the War of 1812!

[Monkthespy]

But in all seriousness, I get you. I'm actually a little jealous that you don't have an entrenched bunker on one side or the other. How's the view? I can't see underneath this helmet and asbestos suit.

Terrible. I see gunfire and a bunch of stock and modded parts flying across the sky. I want a bunker right here in the middle to be honest. Bit too much fire.

[Ledifni]

The #1 problem with MP, as I see it, is that KSP is a game which, by its very nature, involves vast boring distances and time, with brief instants of interesting stuff. That's why you *have* to have time acceleration (or nobody would play) and you *can't* have multiplayer (which, I think, nobody will play, and as FlowerChild pointed out, will waste valuable development time).