KSP Current Update System

[MineAheadTV]

This is sort of carrying over a lengthy comment chain discussion from youtube to a place that is more efficient for discussion. Therefore, I will provide a recap of what has already been discussed.

(I would also like to add the disclaimer that I love the developers of ksp and DO NOT want this to be taken as overly critical of them)

Basically, we were discussing the way that new releases are currently put together. Currently, as an update gets close to release the ksp media team is given access to the build to help squad test it and to get the community hyped for the new release. While some people are fine with this, it sort of rubs me the wrong way. See, the thing is that ksp is listed on steam as an early access game. The idea behind this is that we can test the game and provide feedback to help shape development as the game is made. So basically we are alpha/beta testers. This system works great as a whole, except for when squad begin to show info about a new update. Then we all get antsy and want the next update. Then the ksp media team gets to play with it and make videos.

This is where I take issue. If we are the alpha/beta testers, then why should we not be able to have access to these builds. I understand that squad doesn't feel that they are stable enough to release to the public, but they look stable enough to play in the videos that are released. So what I'd like to propose is a new system for update releases. I think that ksp should do something similar to the way that other game and several other new early access games on steam have begun to do it.

In a nutshell, the way that that other game handles it's releases (for those who do not know) is by allowing the user to decide whether they want to play the most recent stable release, or whether they would rather play a weekly "snapshot" build, one that is updated almost every week and which allows everyone to glimpse the new features that are coming up and to give the developer feedback on the new features before they have invested a ton of time doing bug fixing and stuff. These builds are often buggy, but they are still reasonably stable. They are great for those of us with update fever who can't stand to wait another 2 weeks for an update.

What do you guys think?

TL;DR : KSP should adopt minecraft's snapshot system.

[Poryy]

*Claps*

*Runs*

AAAAFFFFTTTTEEEERRRRRBUUUURRRRNNNNEEERRRRR!

[MineAheadTV]

... ??? I'm confused!

[Pecan]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74303-Update-Hype-Gauge

[Dodgey]

The problem is that ksp is much more complex then Minecraft. Take asteroids for example, if you break it down to its simplest form, all it is is just randomly generated rocks out in space that randomly spawn and unspawn, a grabber, new tanks and engines. Now I'm not a programmer but I know that is a stupidly simplified explanation (almost to the point of being insulting). But that is basically what it is. Simple idea, complex implementation.

I'm assuming that is one of the reasons updates are why they are.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Dodgey
punctuation

[MineAheadTV]

Well, I understand that a weekly update system is not really feasible, but It would be nice to be able to get access to the updates when the media team is given it. It doesn't seem right to give a select few people the option to play the release before us.

[Liowen]

Well, I understand that a weekly update system is not really feasible, but It would be nice to be able to get access to the updates when the media team is given it. It doesn't seem right to give a select few people the option to play the release before us.

It is to showcase what is coming, but those versions are terribly buggy and mods most likely would never work for 99% of it. It is given to the "media team" to drive up buzz for what is coming up and to report any bugs that can be ironed out before it is released to the rest. They could do like most games that are this far into development, and not let you play it at all and just watch what the media is able to show....which if there was an NDA would be next to nothing.

[vexx32]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you weren't here for the versions before 0.14. Prior to that, there was no such thing as the QA Team, or the Experimentals team... every update had some small testing with the devs themselves to try to make sure it was stable enough for public release, then it was basically a free-for-all, with each update there were at least 3-5 hotfixes required to restore the previous stability of the game. It was chaos, even when it did go okay. And when it didn't... damn, did people get upset! "WE PAID FOR THIS GAME!" they cried, ignoring the calmer ones saying something like "It is early-access/alpha-stage software, you know... it's your choice to play it."

It was horrifying. In every sense of the word. Sometime around 0.12-0.14 (my memory's a little fuzzy on the exact timing) the devs decided something had to be done. So, first came the Experimentals team, and then came the QA Team. And with each addition, everything seemed to be working somewhat better. In any case, the present system has consistently worked a whole lot better than making the unstable versions public, so I really doubt Squad are going to go back on it any time soon, and likely not ever.

While a lot of people seem to think that making the nightly or experimental builds a 100% optional download is a good idea, it is simple fact that a lot of people will ignore the warnings, grab the latest version they can possibly find, and then come back to the forums to complain when it crashes or is too unstable to play. It starts fights, it goes to hell very quickly.

I stumbled across KSP just before the Experimentals team was created... and the community was terrifying to behold. Count yourselves lucky that you never had to see that, but don't wish it back into existence... you will regret it, I guarantee that much. Yes, you might contend that it is entirely the player's choice to download and use an unstable software package, but I think you'll find that a large number of people will simply go grab the latest version that is made available, regardless of how unstable it is... and then there's a great mess for us forum staff to clean up when they come here to complain and light the rage-fires.

[ArmchairGravy]

This issue has already been discussed elsewhere. The bottom line: the mass of duplicate and non-useful bug reports generated created havoc, and Squad shifted away from "everybody tests" to "core team of testers". The latter approach is better for everyone involved. Squad gets more useful data, and we get better releases.

Edit--Ninja'd

[MineAheadTV]

Wow. Thank you for that well thought out argument and taking the time to write it. You are correct, I joined shortly before .18 was released, so I only experienced the current system. I understand what you mean about people being too stupid to understand that the experimental version is just that, experimental. However, I do think that you could, for example, have a giant warning be displayed on the experimental version stating that the user should expect large quantities of bugs, and maybe require the user to read through a text thing that says they can only post bug reports in a certain sub forum dedicated to it etc. etc. etc. Thoughts?

[Bobnova]

We aren't alpha testers, we aren't beta testers.

We are the great unwashed public, who have been generously allowed access to this game far, far, far before most studios would even announce the thing.

Keep that in mind.

[ArmchairGravy]

Wow. Thank you for that well thought out argument and taking the time to write it. You are correct, I joined shortly before .18 was released, so I only experienced the current system. I understand what you mean about people being too stupid to understand that the experimental version is just that, experimental. However, I do think that you could, for example, have a giant warning be displayed on the experimental version stating that the user should expect large quantities of bugs, and maybe require the user to read through a text thing that says they can only post bug reports in a certain sub forum dedicated to it etc. etc. etc. Thoughts?

[vexx32]

Wow. Thank you for that well thought out argument and taking the time to write it. You are correct, I joined shortly before .18 was released, so I only experienced the current system. I understand what you mean about people being too stupid to understand that the experimental version is just that, experimental. However, I do think that you could, for example, have a giant warning be displayed on the experimental version stating that the user should expect large quantities of bugs, and maybe require the user to read through a text thing that says they can only post bug reports in a certain sub forum dedicated to it etc. etc. etc. Thoughts?

I think that'd end up being ignored in a similar manner that EULAs and similar documents are. Even with big bold red letters, there's still nothing forcing people to read them, no foolproof way to enforce it. One additional point that I failed to mention is that when a build is unstable. Squad really needs as much information on any issues as possible... without the annoyed tone we still see a fair bit of in bug reports on a stable release. Also, it helps them keep wasted development time to a minimum if the people that test their in-between builds are generally cooperative, dedicated and just plain mature. I cannot count the number of bug reports submitted to the forum and Bug Tracker alike that are basically just "i found a bug in x, please fix, it goes a little bit like this [insert max. 1 sentence description of bug with zero attention to detail]" -- I'm not being mean or anything, but there are a lot of useless reports like that, and if the general public have access to the testing builds, we'd only be flooded with even more of these reports.

As a moderator, I have access to the private testing Bug Tracker sections, and I can tell you first-hand that the quality of reports in the public and private sections of the Bug Tracker are immenselydifferent in quality and effort put in, which is part of the reason the teams are so efficient at getting stuff done -- they have great attention to detail and are always very quick to go grab more information when it's needed. The general public, on the other hand, I have often seen take a high-and-mighty tone of entitled "I paid for this software, it's your job to fix it."

Granted, there are many who are genuinely helpful around, and their help is highly valuable... but it seems to be the case that the testing teams seem to work better when their numbers are kept down, so as to both minimise duplicate reports, and to ensure that if there is an outcry related to the testing releases, it's small and can be sorted out easily. Helpful users still get the public releases and tend to actively be very helpful in debugging any remaining bugs, so it all works out very well.

[Sethnizzle]

We aren't alpha testers, we aren't beta testers.

We are the great unwashed public, who have been generously allowed access to this game far, far, far before most studios would even announce the thing.

Keep that in mind.

Oh please...

(disclaimer: I love this game and am glad Felipe is able to create it, but come on...)

This game was opened up to early access primarily for funding, and for Squad to judge how much interest there was so that they could decide if Felipe would be allowed to continue, or if they'd just let him quit his job. Stop with the "hero worship", you are worthy.

As to the OP, at first I was on board with what you were saying, but after reading the rest of the thread I am glad the update system is the way it is.

[FEichinger]

One thing that really needs to end is this complaint that it is "unfair" that the media team gets access. The media team is, for all intents and purposes, press. Enthusiast press, but press no less. They're bound by an NDA, have embargoes to honour and produce high-quality content. The experimentals testers, on the other hand, are volunteer QA - they produce great bug reports and have been hand-picked for this team.

There is nothing "unfair" about this, it is one of the most open professional settings there is in the indie game industry.

[vexx32]

Also, if I could just draw your attention over here for a moment... This happens... eh, around every few updates or so. Now imagine a forum full of threads like that. That's what it was like when the devs accidentally let a more-unstable-than-usual version go public way back when the experimentals and QA teams had yet to be thought of. Oh, and, as well as the swarms of trolls and people just expressing hate in tweet-size posts, there were a fair few rage-filled walls of text floating around then, too.

(Just thought I'd make good use of available subject matter, since someone decided to post something ridiculous like that yet again, ehehe...)

Edited April 3, 2014 by vexx32

[MineAheadTV]

That's interesting. I never realized there were that many people who were just utter jerks or too clueless to understand that this is an alpha game still under heavy development (but of course there will always be trolls). I'd like to clear the air on one thing though. I'm not an idiot, and I do understand why squad gives the q+a team access early, it just seems like there ought to be a way for the rest of us to play it as well. Maybe I'm just not being realistic enough though.

As for the statement that we are not alpha testers, I think it should be pointed out that if we:

-Are playing the game while it's in alpha

-Find bugs for the developer

-Report those bugs so that the developer can fix them

-Give feedback on what should be added in future updates

Then logically wouldn't we be alpha testers?

Edited April 3, 2014 by MineAheadTV

[Daid]

There is nothing "unfair" about this, it is one of the most open professional settings there is in the indie game industry.

This, and you can actually remove the "indie game industry" and replace it with "just about any software development". As this is by no means unique to games or indie games.

[KerbMav]

I would not want to get updates every day full of obvious bugs and only be able to play the game for a few days before it gets crippled again.

I do not pay a company to be allowed to work for them. As a paying customer I expect to receive a working piece of software. The first time I heard about/saw KSP it did not appeal to me for its very rough cut unfinished gameplay/state. After playing the .18 demo many months later I was hooked and decided to buy now (for less) and enjoy a very playable game, that was still under development but did not really look/feel like it was.

I do not feel entitled to be included in the development process beyond posting in the forums voicing my opinion on features just because I bought the game. Should any game developer at any point give me the feeling that the opinion of the customers is not valued, I cancel subscriptions where applicable and never buy from them again or at least only buy at very reduced prices (e.g. summer sales, years after release etc.)

I put "I" at the beginning of every paragraph to stress that this is my own opinion.

[MineAheadTV]

I would not want to get updates every day full of obvious bugs and only be able to play the game for a few days before it gets crippled again.

I do not pay a company to be allowed to work for them. As a paying customer I expect to receive a working piece of software. The first time I heard about/saw KSP it did not appeal to me for its very rough cut unfinished gameplay/state. After playing the .18 demo many months later I was hooked and decided to buy now (for less) and enjoy a very playable game, that was still under development but did not really look/feel like it was.

I do not feel entitled to be included in the development process beyond posting in the forums voicing my opinion on features just because I bought the game. Should any game developer at any point give me the feeling that the opinion of the customers is not valued, I cancel subscriptions where applicable and never buy from them again or at least only buy at very reduced prices (e.g. summer sales, years after release etc.)

I put "I" at the beginning of every paragraph to stress that this is my own opinion.

What I am proposing wouldn't change that. It simply gives the option to play a buggier version of an upcoming update of we choose to.

[samiamthelaw]

KSP might be incomplete, but it isn't alpha or beta or early access anymore. It takes serious doublethink to maintain that a game that just released an update in collaboration with NASA is somehow also still in its prerelease days. I understand the temptation to maintain the beta label. I've done it for projects of my own. But no matter how insistently you keep numbering the versions zero-point-whatever, there comes a moment past which reality trumps the label. Beta is over.

[MineAheadTV]

KSP might be incomplete, but it isn't alpha or beta or early access anymore. It takes serious doublethink to maintain that a game that just released an update in collaboration with NASA is somehow also still in its prerelease days. I understand the temptation to maintain the beta label. I've done it for projects of my own. But no matter how insistently you keep numbering the versions zero-point-whatever, there comes a moment past which reality trumps the label. Beta is over.

I would tend to agree with you, and that's what I'm driving at here. The developers call it a beta but don't treat it like one. Which is it???

Edited April 3, 2014 by MineAheadTV
Spelling errors

[samiamthelaw]

I would tend to agree with you, and that's what I'm driving at hear. The developers call it a beta but don't treat it like one. Which is it???

It is, nominally, an early access game. But we're playing the game at this point, not testing it. Few (if any) players seek out and report bugs in the manner and clarity expected of any kind of tester, so I'd say the QA job now belongs to the QA team at Squad. Yes, we (the players) encounter bugs. But that doesn't make us testers any more than we're testers for any other piece of software (so just in the entitled "they're using us as testers" way).

I think that labels hinder understanding here. Whether KSP is "beta" or not tells you little. KSP is developed by a small team, and they deliver incremental updates. That model increases the likelihood of some bugs, but gets content out sooner than would a monolithic-update model. I'm willing to tolerate the error rate of the model KSP has chosen, given their performance so far and the price of the game.

[Xeo]

Beta is over.

No, it is not. Technically, it has not even begun.

A game reaches alpha when all the core gameplay systems are integrated. Not polished, balanced or in their final form, but integrated nonetheless.

A game reaches beta when it is feature complete (core and secondary gameplay systems are all in, graphic assets and sounds are all in too). During the beta, the game gets tweaked, balanced and debugged.

When the game is finally polished enough to be released, the beta ends and the final "gold" version of the game gets submitted for publication.

So technically speaking, KSP is still in pre-alpha even if SQUAD calls it an alpha.

The reason why you get the impression that it is "not early access anymore" is precisely because it is in early access : SQUAD must polish every update they release almost as much as a "gold" version in order for the players to avoid a community-wide entitlement-rage, because let's face it, a great number of players do not understand what "early access" means and expect the same quality from KSP as from a finished AAA title.

That said, early access games are not the only one to use that process of development ("sprint updates" that focus on developing a single precise aspect of the game from the ground up, directly in an "almost finished" quality level). This development method is generally known as "agile" and allows quick prototyping, along with early testing/feedback gathering. This is why SQUAD can put so much emphasis on player feedback and QA testing. This is also why all the already developed areas of the game are really polished whereas some core systems do not even exist yet.

But "agile" development also has a big downside as well. It is really hard to respect precise deadlines, because the emphasis is put on quality from the beginning to the end. Does this remind you of something ?

I hope this helps some of you to understand better why KSP is still truly an early access game despite the quality of its content and why the update process of SQUAD is as it is.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Xeo

[Vanamonde]

Look over the bug reports section and notice how often the moderators have to remind people that "It's broken!" is not a bug report which can be usefully acted upon. Having even more players flood the forum with even more of this sort of thing would only clutter the forum for other readers, frustrate the players experiencing the bugs, and increase the dross that Squad has to wade through to find reports with the proper and required information included. That is why the testing team was invented in the first place.

If you are *really* sure that you want earlier access anyway, apply to join the testing team. Squad puts out a call for applications from time to time. But if you do, understand that you will be required to carefully observe how the game breaks, write up the report properly and fully include such things as links to uploads of your game saves, and learn how to use the bug database which the testers use to present this information to the developers. Also, keep in mind that you wouldn't be able to mod the advanced copies of the games you'd be testing. That's because there are simply too many mods for Squad to be responsible for making them all mesh properly with the stock game. In short, it's a job rather than fun and games, and a it's a job for which you would not be paid.