KSP's reputation, does it deserve it?

[PakledHostage]

And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

...

After that, we'd always been at war with Eurasia.

Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"

[Captain Sierra]

Well, it seems some true colors are starting to fly. I shared my two cents earlier. Might was well throw my whole dollar out there now.

I joined the paid KSP community back under .20.2. I've noticed the amount that each change affected the game has slowly declined. Each update is becoming smaller and smaller. HavesteR wrote about these "development asymtotes" in a dev blog. Now, I respect the hell out of the devs for what they have done, how far they have come, and what they have produced. But I am slowly losing faith that the game is actually going to get to a point where it seems complete without mods. While parts-wise, we're getting closer, there's still things that should be added to properly balance out progression. The tech tree needs to at least have the option for a less tutorial-esque tree which is more appealing to veteran players. I've accumulated roughly an hour of game time for every 2-3 posts I have (I hit 1000+ hours this February) so I'd consider myself reasonably skilled.

What concerns me is the amount of major, game changing things being back-burnered. Resources: postponed indefinitely (no longer guaranteed for KSP 1.0). Improved spaceplane parts: postponed indefinitely. Improved aerodynamics & re-entry heating: postponed indefinitely. Roll all three of these into one update, and you have something as game changing as .18. Right now, the only way to get these functionalities is with mods, and I thank God and the devs that this game is as mod friendly and supportive as it is. My problem is that there is no roadmap, not even a rough plan even within Squad. We have no way of knowing even roughly how far away things are. For all we know, these might not even make it into KSP 1.0. Heck, even resource mining is no longer confirmed for KSP 1.0. last I checked, it was listed as planned, but not guaranteed for complete version.

What concerns me is a trend I've noticed recently with some other games. Things get pushed back and back to the point of 'postponed indefinitely' and then left to be forgotten. This is not unintentional. I've seen studios use this as a way to get around a community that vehemently wants something that they don't want to do for whatever reason. I'd like to think Squad is better than that, but following a more recent PR incident (dating back to around November 2013), I'm losing faith that they are. If I am right, then something 'being put on the back burner' really translates to 'we don't want to do this so we're gonna push it back and ignore it until it goes away.' And believe me, I REALLY don't want to be right.

Addressing another issue brought up earlier, multiplayer. It was a taboo on the forums for the longest time and even though locking may have been to prevent the ad nauseum discussions, the mere utter of the word would get a thread locked. And Vanamonde, before you say otherwise, I've been around long enough to see threads which were intelligent, productive discussions locked purely because they discussed multiplayer. It was a massive taboo. It was also stated offically by Squad that multiplayer was confirmed as a 'never to be implemented' item for KSP. It wasn't until one modder said "F this" and built a working multiplayer client and the massive fan reaction which ensued that Squad realized how badly we wanted it. I think part of that stemmed from the fact that, being the taboo it was, multiplayer discussions were effectively censored and Squad probably had no idea how badly the community demanded it. There is a distinct flaw with the WNTS list in that the community has the power to change Squad's mind. Multiplayer is proof enough, but the community shouldn't have to effectively do the work for Squad before they agree to put it on the roadmap. WNTS, in all reality, makes it very very difficult for players to a) attempt to change Squad's mind, and suggest a suggested-to-death item in a new way which often makes more sense and is actually feasible in the game.

Well, that may have been more than a dollar, but there's my thoughts. Hopefully it's not too 'in the rough'.

[MR4Y]

Why reinvent the wheel? Why ignore a good idea? Just because a feature or mod look the same does not mean that the back end is the same. Also a question to anyone wanting to vote, have you had fun, have you got your money's worth, how many hours per doller have you got out of this game? Consider this before you vote, does it matter if it's alpha? Does it matter that there are underdeveloped features? Do any of these things change the amount of fun that you have had with this game? Because that is all the matters, how much fun you have had.

Regards

Dodgey

Reinventing the wheel is one thing. Using other people's work and claiming as your own or calling it a feature is another.

Let's see the pattern:

1- User suggests feature XYZ.

2- Forums/Devs shun it aside/call it impractical/tell it will sacrifice fun(or gameplay, or nostalgia).

3- A mod with the suggested functionality is made.

4- The so denied functionality is now implemented into the game.

So far:

1- Capacity of filtering vessels, destroy debris and define vessel category and object (Haystack)

2- Capacity of saving parts of vessels and using them later. (Subassembly Loader/Saver then Subassembly Manager)

3- Career mode with "resource mining" (I forgot the name of the mod that had missions and all that +`Kethane)

4- Tweakables (ModularFuels, TweakableEverything[along with other mods that allowed part file editing on the fly])

So, the formula seems clear. The odds of a suggested feature being "implemented" are higher if there's is a mod to where functionality can be copied and pasted into the main game.

[Dodgey]

And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

At risk of restarting this particular conflagration, that was not the given reason. The given reason was that the devs had no intention of adding the feature into the main game. That was the official line until Kerbalkon.

After that, we'd always been at war with Eurasia.

slightly off-point, which recent update of minecraft (except for the horses) followed this pattern? Come to think of it, which released version of KSP...

Oh yea, spaceplanes, rovers...

Yes it matters if it's alpha. Yes it matters that the features are underdeveloped. And it DEFINITELY changes the amount of fun we've had. It's a slight distortion to say that we can't complain unless we've had no fun. The amount of fun we could all have would be GREATER were these things fixed.

You mentioned minecraft, does that mean that you don't want squad to listen to the community? What I can gather is what that means when someone talks about minecraft.

Why does it matter that it's an "alpha"? It's just a classification that means work in progress, which even now is losing meaning. Look at minecraft, what had changed development wise since it was released? Nothing.

I'm going to clarify my previous statement by stating that weather or not a feature is underdeveloped is a subjective term in the same way fun and challenging are. What I was saying is look at the amount of fun that you have gotten out of the game and then think weather or not the game is underrated or not.

Also stating that mods are "needed" is just a pure fallacy. That was not directed at you Stargate525, but I have seen people stating this numerous times.

[Rowsdower]

Your thoughts were not too "in the rough," Captain, so thanks for keeping it on the level. Despite your concerns, though, do you still manage to have fun with the game?

EDIT: This message was posted before a few replies before it. Suddenly, things are once again becoming argumentative and additionally, it's turned into accusing Squad of certain theft, which is absolutely not the case. Thread closed.

Edited March 7, 2014 by Rowsdower