Is KSP becoming like Minecraft?

[iDan122]

Lately I noticed that the way KSP is developed is becoming more and more similar to Minecraft.

All starts with a simple game,Chen it reaches it's peak, there are still good things to be added but the the devs stop listening to the community and decide to do what THEY want by adding useless or non-essential features and putting good ideas on hold.

In KSP, everything was going great, I think the peak was somewhere around versions 0.18-0.21 when we got things like: a new planet, docking, maneuver nodes, wheels, a proper SAS, new aerodynamic FX, and a new, polished KSC.

Then it started going a little down with career mode with its strange tech tree and we didn't get that many new parts. With 0.23, the only amazing thing we got was the RAPIER engine(finally something good) and the very useful tweakables.

Then kerbalkon and the devs announce that they chose multiplayer over resources(and mining) and that they will to add any new celestial bodies because "they are not needed". How can they know what we want and what not? By guessing?

If you go to the KSP discussion, you will SEe multiple polls where the majority wants resources and everyone expects a new celestial body, but apparently we won't get one. Is it that hard to give us at least one planet in 1 year? It literally takes some 2 days to add one.

I hope SQUAD devs see this and think about KSP's future, I'd this keeps on going I don't think we will see any new planets or stars in 2014, and resources will probably be available only in 2015.

What do you guys think?

Note I love KSP but I hate where it is going since hearing of the devs' plans at kerbalkon.

I used to love Minecraft a lot and thought it would always be good but then all those updates killed it.

I am feeling that KSP is starting to take e same path.

Edited December 25, 2013 by iDan122

[stupid_chris]

Statements like this are very efficient debate breakers. What you've just did is completely kill the question. You just instantly jumped to the conclusion that "KSP is becoming like Minecraft". That is not only going to stir a lot of angry reactions, but totally going to kill any discussion there might be from this point on. I think you should change your title to say "Do you think KSP is becoming like Minecraft" and change your post accordingly, else I can already feel this won't last long before we have to step in and do some cleaning, and no one wants that, especially on Christmas.

Also, you might want to rethink this, the common problem with Minecraft is that the devs are solely listening to the community, and that is what is driving the game into the ditch... not sure where you come from with it the other way around :/

Edited December 25, 2013 by stupid_chris

[r4pt0r]

to clear up a few things for you bro, its their game, and they will do as they please. ksp is squads baby and they will do what they think is best for it. if your idea of a good update is many new parts and new planets, your "ideal" game has a mountain of ever expanding un-optimized content. 23. is the best update thus far. the things behind the scenes, optimization that kind of stuff, make it playable.

resources will take a long while, but you can play with them now if you like. when they do add resources half the community will say "aww its just like the kethane mod, i didn't want that" and the other half will say "its just like the kethane mod, awesome"! either that or people will have been wishing for something completely differennt. i dont think they should be adding much more content until the framework of the current game is more comlete. aerodynamics and drag need alot of re-working yet, and science and the tech tree might need some re-organizing.

furthermore, it literaly does not take 2 days to add a planet. coding is not that easy. you're ignoring biomes, the science fluff text, adding more code to the archives, having interesting planet geometry and textures. before they add any new planets, im certain they will finish adding biomes to our current roster of planets and moons. that kind of stuff is much more important to the game than another nondescript rock orbiting the sun.

Edited December 25, 2013 by r4pt0r

[Rakshasa]

OP doesn't like Science?

[NovaSilisko]

Agreeing with chris. Any sort of poll like this really needs to take a neutral stance, at least outwardly. OP can feel however he wants to feel but the poll should be objective and not attempt to sway voters/interject opinion.

[r4pt0r]

on another note, this is from pcgamer interview with squad "Holtzman: The game is science fiction, but one of the things that Felipe has really driven is that he wants the science to come first and the fiction to come second. So when you start talking about multiple solar systems, you get further into the realm of fiction."

so that dashes your hopes of another star

Squad: you're doing a great job, and i am very happy to have come across your game

[kurja]

So we played ksp sandbox in ~ .20, and it was great, ksp at it's peak as you put it. Now you fire up .23 sandbox which is the same sans faster code and few new parts, and it's garbage because it's no longer the only game mode available? I don't follow. By same logic ksp is horrible because it's possible to use mods.

[Rowsdower]

Tread carefully here.

[Wayfare]

Is it that hard to give us at least one planet in 1 year? It literally takes some 2 days to add one.

Saying something like that is a great way to pick a fight with a programmer, especially if you're in a hurry

[FenrirWolf]

I never had the feeling that minecraft would evolve much beyond what I first experienced when I played it for the first time back in alpha, and that prediction largely came to pass. There were all kinds of hopes and aspirations at what it could become, but I dunno. I just didn't see it. Some of it was Notch not being willing or able to take the game to the next level, and some of it was just the limitations of what the game was.

Meanwhile I feel like there's a lot more room for KSP to grow. Some of it is the nature of the game vs MC. Some of it is the team behind this game vs MC's. The devs still seem involved and, more inportantly, in love with the project from everything that I've seen, and I feel like they can succeed in areas where MC fell short.

A lot of their current issues are PR related, really. In some ways they might have been too open in the past, since when they post about things that they want to eventually put in the game (like the resource mining WIP), hungry forumites internalize it as if it were scripture when it was nothing of the sort.

[Kasuha]

This poll is completely wrong. The poll question has nothing to do with the thread title, and poll answers have nothing to do with the poll question. I can understand OP is frustrated by the game not going the direction he wants it to go, but I don't see a point in expressing it this way.

[adge]

Disagree completely. I feel the devs are heading in the right direction. I'd rather have a heavily optimized but smaller game, than superfluous content thrown in that's a mess behind the scenes.

I still play (and enjoy) Minecraft on a server with good friends, but over on Planet Minecraft the issue of the day seems to be too many immature players being found on the game, ruining a lot of servers etc. Luckily, those same people, I think, won't find their way to KSP, and if they did, it's no way near as simple as MC.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

No, unlike minecraft, even if they screw it up (999 sigmas sure they won't) you don't need a degree in computer science to mod it! I know the 'use mods' excuse has come up many a time, but those who complain about the game and don't use mods, you're limiting your self to a standard game not customised at all, the stock game is like a plain cupcake, nice, well rounded feels complete, mods are you favourite icing. And the KSP dev's (unlike minecraft) have stayed the same, noticed when minecraft when't 'downhill'? It was when the main coders where switched, SQUAD, on the other hand knows what works and sticks to it.

TL:DR No

[montyben101]

My opinion is that they should add 2 more gas giants then a small pluto/eris analogue. Multiplayer AND resources would be good.

[NovaSilisko]

And the KSP dev's (unlike minecraft) have stayed the same

Define "stayed the same" - do you mean the team as a whole has stayed the same (demonstrably false), or the attitude of the team has stayed the same?

[Superfluous J]

There does not exist a piece of software in the universe that is used by more than a couple people, that at least some of those people don't want changes to. And those people want changes to different things. And some of those people are SURE that the changes they want are critical to the software working "correctly." There are other people who think those changes are exactly what the software does NOT need, and are SURE that if those changes are made, the software will STOP working "correctly."

Completely separate from these two group (in fact there are more than 2 groups, and usually the number of groups is almost equal to the number of users) groups are the developers. Every change they make, half the "community" hates them for it. Every change they do NOT make, half the "community" hates them for it.

If Squad added resources, people would think they're not focusing on multiplayer and instead abandoned it for this useless thing. They instead decided to (hopefully) put it on the back burner to revisit later, and instead people are mad about that. They won't put dV readings in and people are mad at that (me included, TBH). If they put them in, others would complain that all this math is ruining the "Kerbalness" of the game.

The devs can't win if they try to make us all happy. All they can do is make the game they want to make.

And then we mod in all the stuff we actually want.

[dharak1]

Were there optimizations in .23? I haven't noticed any changes to FPS and lag since maybe .17 when I first got the game my average 150 part ship always runs 50-60 FPS looking up and 30-40 looking down.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Please close this thread, i can feel the anger dwelling in the deep.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Please close this thread, i can feel the anger dwelling in the deep.

Good idea @_@

[jwenting]

it's a good thing they don't do 90%+ of what's "suggested" as it would ruin the game for 90%+ of the players if they did.

[nine_iron]

Part of my job is building access databases and spreadsheets using VBA for other people, so I can sort of see what it MIGHT maybe be like for Squad...

Its their game, the should build it how they want. By all means listen to the community but to be lead by a community is like trying to have 5000 captains on a starship and only one ensign.

[The-Bean]

Just wondering - does anyone have that graph Nova made a while back? If you've seen it you probably know what I'm talking about.

[Javster]

Remember:

They are not required to listen to the community at all.

They are not required to make the game available in its alpha state.

I also agree that we don't need a new planet. I've played 200+ hours and I haven't gone beyond Duna yet.

If you think the game is really lacking, then maybe there's a mod adding to it? Squad have made it very easy to install mods, so make the most of it.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Javster

[Tuareg]

a proper SAS, new aerodynamic FX,

you play something completely different game than me these 2 things would be great additions

[iDan122]

I am not saying the game is horrible right now, no, it is great, but Squad isn't choosing the right priorities in KSP's development in my opinion. The devs said the "community is everything to them" so why don't they then just listen to it?

It would have been clearer if they just said "we will do what WE want and we don't care about what you think".