[Discussion] Questionable design decisions

[Dodgey]

Wrong example. Battlefield 4 is an FPS. Killing stuff is part of the whole point of that genre.

dV calculators are a critical part of this kind of simulator. Leaving them out of stock is a bad decision IMO.

Flying by the seat of your pants is a critical part of this kind of game, which is an opinion shared by a lot of others in this community including the devlopers, if you are using critical in the way that I am (to say the game would not function, be severely damaged by the lack ok an indicator), than I simply cannot agree, the fact that people can travel with ease to the outer edges of the the solar system without it are evidence to this.

If your defination is different to mine please let me know so we are on the same page.

[crazyewok]

I disagree. Thinking that dv calculator is critical for KSP is a sign you grew too dependent on one. You don't even realize the game can be played without one just fine.

And some of us more grown up players dont want to play without one, we want to know our DV, its not dependance its accurate and precise designs we want, not slap together designs. You dont like? well dont use Dv calculators, that your choice. Just dont get in the way of us who dont want to play like that.

[crazyewok]

Flying by the seat of your pants is a critical part of this kind of game,

In your opinion not everyone elses!

Dont speak for all, im not.

I would say the opinion is split 50/50 so let those that want to play that way do so and let those that dont do the same. Theres no dam reason to force any one type of gameplay on anyone!

[Atoning Unifex]

I disagree. Thinking that dv calculator is critical for KSP is a sign you grew too dependent on one. You don't even realize the game can be played without one just fine.

I disagree with your disagreement! When I first started playing I had no idea how to get into orbit, or basically even close, until I was introduced to Kerbal Engineer, and was able to see how various configurations changed dV. Suddenly I was able to see how simply adding more boosters didn't always help, and the great advantages of asparagus staging (I hate that term!).

On the other hand though, if they don't want to add a dV calculator to the game then I'm happy to simply use a mod!

[Dodgey]

-snip- very simple option screen could save all that hassel?

As I said, the same argument that it could be toggled and you wouldn't have to use it could be said for every single argument that is suggested the more than two people get up and arms about.

While it is true that it would get rid of some of the hassle on the forums, you have to remember that a lot of times the minority can be louder then the majority, just because people are making a big stir about it does not mean that they represent the majority, especially when you consider that the vast majority learnt how to fly at least to orbit without the use of an indicator. Again it still goes back to how much of a simulator vs "game" squad wants to make it.

[Kasuha]

Uhm.. This idea looks really weird to me, to tell the truth. Especially the "skills" part of it. I don't get it.

That's telling, isn't it? I agree, you don't need any skills to get a ship to orbit or to land by pressing a button in MechJeb interface. But I'm not sure the game is just about that.

Answered the same question already. Reentry heat still allows aerobraking and even aerocapture. Even aerobraking without heat shield is possible.

Allows, but makes it harder. Many of my aerocaptures and direct landings would not be possible with it. And I find it enjoyable to watch my ship in a ball of flame.

I find it funny. You clearly think the game needs to be made easier in one area (dv calculator) and harder in another (reentry). But, you know, that's just your opinion.

Yes, of course, I was saying that about the tech tree itself, not the idea of it. And I think it's okay to critisize it while it's still WIP, since the general concept of how they want to fill the tech tree has been discussed by the devs already a few times - they see it as a tutorial to introduce parts to the player. This affects what's exactly in the tech tree.

You don't even know how the whole career mode is going to work and you're already saying its part is silly and bad developer decision. Don't you think it's a bit ... overboard? If nothing else, it doesn't help anything.

EVA reports alone can make lots of science. There's simply not that much of probe-sized stuff there yet, and I didn't hear devs saying anything about that there will be eventually. And that's bothering me, cuz I think there should be enough of both of them.

When 0.22 came out, probes were kings. You can spam science and you needed no EVA reports or samples. I finished my tech tree with just two probes. Then 0.23 came out and nerfed that in favor of manned missions. Do you really think it was bad? It takes a while to balance things out.

[Atoning Unifex]

In your opinion not everyone elses!

Dont speak for all, im not.

I would say the opinion is split 50/50 so let those that want to play that way do so and let those that dont do the same. Theres no dam reason to force any one type of gameplay on anyone!

I know I've had this conversation with you before on another thread, but you seem to have forgotten.

What you are suggesting is that squad implements everything so that people can play how they want. This means random solar systems, FLT, colonies, black holes, resources & mining, orbital construction, alien life... need I go on? The problem with doing this is that it all takes time and money. Do we want to wait another 3 years for the game to be completed because squad are trying to create a totally open ended game which caters for every possible player, running the risk of going broke in the process? I'd hope your answer is no!

We have to accept that the final game will probably not meet all of our ideals and that we will have to rely on mods to fill in the gaps we see as being the most important.

[Dodgey]

-snip-

We have to accept that the final game will probably not meet all of our ideals and that we will have to rely on mods to fill in the gaps we see as being the most important.

Exactually, it's like engineering, everything is a comprimise.

[r4pt0r]

I know I've had this conversation with you before on another thread, but you seem to have forgotten.

i argue with this guy in every smurfin' thread and he just keeps throwing his "if you dont want it dont use it" rhetoric. its useless. people like him cant be helped.

he would prefer ksp was a mix of simcity for colonization, star trek for meeting other races, minecraft for the dynamic generation, and ksp as it is now butwith a few of his choice mods installed.

he would really just prefer his own game not squads.

Edited February 8, 2014 by r4pt0r

[Kasuha]

And some of us more grown up players dont want to play without one, we want to know our DV, its not dependance its accurate and precise designs we want, not slap together designs. You dont like? well dont use Dv calculators, that your choice. Just dont get in the way of us who dont want to play like that.

Well sure, but that does not make it a critical part of the game. Appreciated feature? Definitely. Critical? No way.

[crazyewok]

I This means random solar systems, FLT, colonies, black holes, resources & mining, orbital construction, alien life... need I go on? The problem with doing this is that it all takes time and money. Do we want to wait another 3 years for the game to be completed because squad are trying to create a totally open ended game which caters for every possible player, running the risk of going broke in the process? I'd hope your answer is no!

.

Rubbish

OIn this thread we are talking some simple gameplay enhancemnets that would be so simple to add that they where the first mods. Wouldnt be much of a development hassel in the case of entry reheat and a dv calc.

The other things you talk of are a diffrent topic.

[Kasuha]

I disagree with your disagreement!

You may disagree that I can play the game without a dv calculator but that couldn't change anything on the fact that I can.

And if the matter is proving the game can be played that way, one player is enough of a proof, disagree with it or not.

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Kasuha

[Dodgey]

Rubbish

OIn this thread we are talking some simple gameplay enhancemnets that would be so simple to add that they where the first mods. Wouldnt be much of a development hassel in the case of entry reheat and a dv calc.

The other things you talk of are a diffrent topic.

The argument still stands, if you add one suggestion that is togable for the reasons that it will stop the hassle and not everyone will have to use it, then you have to add all things that's are suggested.

[macegee]

Yes you can please everybody. Its a little thing called PRE GAME OPTIONS! I dont see how people can grasp this simple concept. Before you set up a new game you get a little menue listing game options you want and the player can CHOOSE what they want, dont like DV calc? Turn it off, dont like re entry heat? turn it off, dont like resources ? turn it off.

Unfortunately, there's a limit as to how much devs can do, so it's not good idea to add optional stuff for minority of players, especially if it doesn't fit "the vision" of the stock game. But I'm trying to figure out how many of you think if things in question are actually important.

Now I'm just providing an objective point of view, however just a few points I want to cover. Macegee, you commented about multiplayer, saying that the before they said it wasn't going to happen and now it is. And that (correct me if I'm wrong) the lack of an open roadmap (plan) creates confusion and drama and the such, now am I right in assuming that you would prefere that Squad is able to change their mind about what they had said I the past, rather than stick to a concrete plan even of the situation changed, KMP for example.

(Dammit it, you ninjad me Kasuha)

SQUAD has all the rights. And we have the rights to criticize them if they change directions, yes. I think it's natural. It opens up a dialog.

Secondly I would ask you to stop speaking on behalf of everyone in your arguments, and I quote "While flying blindly might be fun for some people, it's gonna be frustrating for others, and, actually, for everyone - to become a grind. Even doing calculations by hand all the time IS a grind." end quote. It is an argumentive fallacy as evident by this discussion.

Yep, sorry about that. As I've said before, I'm a Russian, so I'm not that perfect in expressing my thoughts in English. What I meant to say is that some of the people get frustrated, but technically everyone would be grinding - meaning that they'd have to do same things over and over again - redesign their ships that didn't have enough fuel, or send a refueling mission, and even simply flying the same flight again to achieve what was suppose to be achieved. Or calculate stuff by hand. Do you agree that technically it is a grind? I don't want to express thoughts on behalf of everyone else, of course.

As far as "questionable design decisions" go -- Squad is very clear that they are developing a game, not a simulation. The reason the game attracted hard-core simmers at first is because you had to be, to get any enjoyment out of the game. With the mechanics of the game nearly fully developed, focus is now shifting to enhancing gameplay, especially for the more casual gamers. So it is fully understandable that development is now going towards career mode, contracts (providing goals, an alien concept for hardcore simmers), good in-game tutorials. All that makes perfect sense in the development of KSP The Game but it means that less (or no) resources are spent on KSP The Simulation.

Is that a bad thing? Obviously it is, when you are looking for a realistic simulation (which the opening screen will tell you right of the bat KSP is not), but for development as a game it is natural.

For me personally, atmospheric behavior (both at launch as well as re-entry, but I think re-entry heating is very closely related to good aerodynamic modeling) is the one part that needs improvement and that I expect improvement since it can only enhance gameplay (it adds an "it's not over till it's over" element to the game).

What I see with most requests for "more realism" is a desire to make the game more "hardcore." N-body physics! Lagrange Points! Random Failures! Which will make the game a miserable experience for all but the most committed players. Running out of fuel in Duna, and quickly sending in a fuel tank while time accelerating because you don't want to wait half a year? LOLZ u didn't maintain ur orbit! Fuel arrives, mission has disappeared... That might be ok for some, 95% of the players will not be happy about that.

In the end, Squad will make decisions that make the game appealing for the majority of the players. And with KSP getting more and more fame, that will be a focus on making the game easier and "fun," not harder and radical.

I know that KSP isn't a simulator per se, even if it's marked as one in Steam (with tags "indie", "early acccess" and "simulator"). And I know what simulators are. You can find my name in the credits of the DCS A-10C simulator game manual, as "Mikita L0ckAndL0ad Machatov".

I don't want KSP to become more "hard-core" or "harder". No. I want to see it grow more in-depth. I'm a game designer myself, so I know very well that there should be a balance between realism and fun. It is the key, actually. Said Deadly Reentry mod doesn't make the game harder, there're other things with the same magnitude of difficulty within the game. It just expands it in depth. And if we're talking about making the game easier for more casual players - delta-v/twr/burn time info is exactly what would make their life easier, as others pointed out, it's easier to understand space travel and rocket design with having these indicators at your disposal.

Edited February 8, 2014 by macegee

[Dodgey]

With regard to what I said in my second quote there, "Secondly I would ask you to stop speaking on behalf of everyone in your arguments, and I quote "While flying blindly might be fun for some people, it's gonna be frustrating for others, and, actually, for everyone - to become a grind. Even doing calculations by hand all the time IS a grind." end quote. It is an argumentive fallacy as evident by this discussion." It was for the purpose of transparency nothing more, I will add some disclaimers to my sig due to this.

I don't think that deadly reentry can just be considered to only add more depth and not difficulty. It's not a complete rebalancing of the mechanics of the game, but I do think that it is severe enough to be left out of the game.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that the atmosphere needs to be redone, it is placeholder by the way, but burning up on reentry is just over the line for me, g loading on the other hand isn't.

[macegee]

That's telling, isn't it? I agree, you don't need any skills to get a ship to orbit or to land by pressing a button in MechJeb interface. But I'm not sure the game is just about that.

Uhm.. Now I'm even more confused. What does it have to do with MechJeb? I'm really lost here.

You don't even know how the whole career mode is going to work and you're already saying its part is silly and bad developer decision. Don't you think it's a bit ... overboard? If nothing else, it doesn't help anything.

When 0.22 came out, probes were kings. You can spam science and you needed no EVA reports or samples. I finished my tech tree with just two probes. Then 0.23 came out and nerfed that in favor of manned missions. Do you really think it was bad? It takes a while to balance things out.

I'm not judging based only on what's inside the game already, I'm talking about the concepts that devs use and describe to us. By the time the game is finished I'd still be playing it, regardless of what they do. But right now we can discuss and criticize the concepts that are used to make it.

Allows, but makes it harder. Many of my aerocaptures and direct landings would not be possible with it. And I find it enjoyable to watch my ship in a ball of flame.

I find it funny. You clearly think the game needs to be made easier in one area (dv calculator) and harder in another (reentry). But, you know, that's just your opinion.

I don't think that deadly reentry can just be considered to only add more depth and not difficulty. It's not a complete rebalancing of the mechanics of the game, but I do think that it is severe enough to be left out of the game.

Guys. You can look at it that way. But don't forget about all of the other game mechanics that's already there - ship designing, ascent, orbital maneuvers, rendezvous, docking - most of these are even more challenging than knowing how to deal with reentry heat. And on the bright side, it adds more ways to die, more explosions, and need to attach more boosters to your craft if you feel like it, after adding some extra weight (heat shields or more fuel). Both sides win, IMO.

Edited February 8, 2014 by macegee

[CaptRobau]

1. My favorite, and a big one - lack of Delta-v indicator for ships and other important editor/in-flight info.

I'd rather have indicator for altitude above ground included in the external view than delta-V info, but I see your point.

2. Lack of reentry heat.

Realistic reentry heat with heat shields and the like go against the cobbled-together spirit of the game. But a simplified system that has parts blow up only if your reentry is super-fast and thus too hot isn't, and would enhance both the game and the mods that want to take reentry to an even bigger level (because IRL there's just too small of a margin of error for a game that's about eyeballing it).

3. Tech tree as a mean to introduce parts to the new players.

I understand their decision to have Kerbals be the first thing that flies, but there are indeed problems with how the tech tree works. The majority of the parts have been balanced towards sandbox, but that's not how it works in real-life. Things like aerospikes and nuclear thermal rockets should be OP, because that's just how they work. If they'd balance towards career, the tech tree would unlock OP parts at appropriate times. You start building your rockets with simple 1.25m engines. Then you move on to big 2.5m engines, which make the small ones much less useful. The aerospikes and NTRs unlocked after that then take center role. But since it's a linear progression it's ok. In each phase you'll be using different engines, which keeps the game fresh for longer.

4. Manned flights give too much advantages over the use of unmanned probes, while there’s little reason not to use kerbals.

Very true. My mod Science Revisited is all about that. I fixed it mostly by adding less efficient unmanned versions of manned-only experiments as well as an experiment that's just perfect for unmanned satellites.

5. No public roadmap.

They definitely have an internal road map. They learn everyday however and thus priorities change. Resources was a bad concept and they realized it wouldn't even matter if there wasn't something like a career mode with contracts, etc. They should've communicated that change better, because too many expected resources too long after it was moved down the priority list. A public road map could help with that, but it can also result into too much entitlement by players. There's less room for experimentation, because if it's not delivered on the players will be up in arms. Docking was one of those experiments, which was a massive improvement that was definitely not on any roadmap.

6. “There’s a mod for it, stop asking for it†attitude.t

I don't see that as an attitude of the devs, but rather one of community members. The devs are adding in the same improvements that the Kerbal Joint Reinforcements mod adds for example. If it was truly their attitude they wouldn't do that.

[crazyewok]

I did go onto say that if your method is a gameplay survey then the devlopers have no reason to add any feature untill it is done.

So? Then we wait until they do a survey and compile the results. I have no problem with waiting it it helps clear up what the community want and dont want and help with there design focus. In the meantime they can work on other things.

[Dodgey]

Uhm.. Now I'm even more confused. What does it have to do with MechJeb? I'm really lost here.

-snip-

She (not sure of gender sorry) is saying that the game is quite possible to play if you have the skill, and that adding in an indicator would take away from that skill, in the same was as using a calculator in real life would take away from the still of doing math in your head.

If am wrong I am sorry, just wanted to help clear things up.

[PDCWolf]

Erm yes I have.

A gameplay survey.

Thats pretty simple. Squad sends out a queationaire with ideas and the playerbase votes on it. If something is 50/50 make it a option. If its 25-50% add a mod framwork for modders tro handle it If only a minority are for it? Dont bother with it.

And that creates a big problem, a minecraft 2 of sorts.

So yeah, if you want it to work, make it an in-game thing, non-ignorable.

[r4pt0r]

So? Then we wait until they do a survey and compile the results. I have no problem with waiting it it helps clear up what the community want and dont want and help with there design focus. In the meantime they can work on other things.

it's about what squad wants, not what this comunity wants. reminder that its their game, that you purchased, with these terms https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/terms.php

Please keep in mind:

Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.

Squad is under no obligation to implement any given set of features prior to the final release for KSP or any future title. All posted lists of planned features are unofficial and do not imply a promise by Squad to deliver anything listed in them.

Squad reserves the right to add, remove and modify content on any of its software at their own discretion, without prior notice.

Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion.

Edited February 8, 2014 by fcbayerndm
Reaction image redacted pursuant Community rule 2.3a.

[crazyewok]

it's about what squad wants, not what this comunity wants. reminder that its their game, that you purchased, with these terms https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/terms.php

Please keep in mind:

Squad is not under any obligation to release any updates, expansions or titles at any time. Each release may very well be the last one.

Squad is under no obligation to implement any given set of features prior to the final release for KSP or any future title. All posted lists of planned features are unofficial and do not imply a promise by Squad to deliver anything listed in them.

Squad reserves the right to add, remove and modify content on any of its software at their own discretion, without prior notice.

Squad is under no obligation to maintain any level of communication with the player community, choosing to do so at their own discretion.

And this is a suggestion forum! And I suggest a survey to detrmine what ideas are popular or not.

dodgey asked me a way squad could work out what ideas are popular or not. I have him away. Squad doesnt have to do it of course, but in my opinion that would be stupid not to.

And I hold the right to call there descions stupid. Doesnt mean they have to bend over and follow what I say but I can still call the stupid.

It seem with you you cant suggest anything! Why bother even haveing a suggestion forum!

The fact your so militantly defending sqaud against any suggestions or critisms and then showing me there T&C;s like a little child thats sqealing to a teacher shows me a pretty fanboi attitude.

[Dodgey]

So? Then we wait until they do a survey and compile the results. I have no problem with waiting it it helps clear up what the community want and dont want and help with there design focus. In the meantime they can work on other things.

1. If you quote someone and delete part of their statement please put a "-snip-" in there to indicate you did so, otherwise people will think that was the entire statement.

2. Only very recently did you suggest how they should determine what features what to put in after you were told many times why they shouldn't add them in.

3. As PDCWolf said.

4. Just because the community wants it doesn't mean in anyway that it is the correct course of action.

5. Terms Of Service

[crazyewok]

And that creates a big problem, a minecraft 2 of sorts.

http://i.imgur.com/p57EN7t.png

So yeah, if you want it to work, make it an in-game thing, non-ignorable.

As far as im concerned squads a buiness and are in it to make $$$$.

If it ends up in mine craft two good for them, the old fanbase needs to adapt or die.

Anyway it why im in favour of a option system so the game can contine to adapt and change and bring in new players but the old players can play with there old settings.

[r4pt0r]

/snip or whatever

4. Just because the community wants it doesn't mean in anyway that it is the correct course of action.

this sums it up

And crazyewok stop saying fanboi for the love of talos. it makes you seem incredibly effeminate

Edited February 8, 2014 by r4pt0r