KSP Current Update System

[Greenfire32]

Yeah I remember the "New Update! Wait...hotfix...ohp another one...wow another hotfix, I'm still downloading the last one....JESUS guys, now the download links are down!" days.

I don't miss them. I much prefer the current release method over the old one.

[regex]

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.

That other game also didn't start the snapshot practice until they had a pretty mature codebase for a mostly feature complete game. Most of the back-end work was already done (I've modded that game and have seen the source) so adding new features wouldn't potentially affect large chunks of code or require massive refactoring. KSP is not ready for the snapshot model.

[Tank Buddy]

We are the "beta testers". The game is in beta. So you're asking to test the beta of the beta if you want to test an update before the release. We test the current version of the game so that the Devs know if content they added is suitable.

[samiamthelaw]

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.

KSP is polished enough to be sold for $27. The idea of having a "gold" version "submitted for publication" isn't sufficiently descriptive of this corner of reality. Yes, KSP is incomplete, but for a project of this type, completeness isn't a very useful measure of the project's maturity. Using the development stages of alpha, beta, and 1.0 (gold), KSP will probably spend several years in pre-alpha, a few weeks in alpha, a few in beta, and go gold shortly after. There are projects for which those descriptors would be useful, but I don't think KSP is one of them; that's just the nature of an early-access game. I concede that KSP is early access, but I disagree with calling it a "beta" or an "alpha" or a "pre-alpha" because it has plenty of users--customers, really, at this point--and because the connotations (e.g. regarding stability) that accompany "beta" software are inapposite to KSP's present state.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

I completely agree with this.

[MineAheadTV]

I completely agree with this.

With what? The op or the post above yours?

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

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.

But, what if the bug in say kills your KSP save you where playing for 3 days. Lost all that progress. Then you come to the forum - complain about it. Ask them if they can recover your save. They can't. You get angry, then someone like me finds this post and requotes you. You get angrier then stop playing.

[MineAheadTV]

But, what if the bug in say kills your KSP save you where playing for 3 days. Lost all that progress. Then you come to the forum - complain about it. Ask them if they can recover your save. They can't. You get angry, then someone like me finds this post and requotes you. You get angrier then stop playing.

you could make it so the saves don't cross over, and like I said it would be full of warnings that saves are at risk etc. etc. etc.

[Javster]

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.

YES! I fully agree! We're technically playtesting the game, and we should be able to test it.

[RazorWolf19]

Well, maybe instead of hyping the release so much they should just let the media team make a "Trailer" of sorts and that's it.

The End. No Twitch streams or hype through any other means.

The thing is, I feel people are too exposed to the update and then when they finally get the patch they're just like, "Yep, this is indeed what I saw... there's nothing else...yep." There's no discovery or testing because everyone knows exactly what's in the patch and how it all works. It's like they've already played it.

Just my opinion, it is nice to see what's upcoming. I miss DevBlogs.

Thanks For Reading,

Happy Flying!

[Bobnova]

So don't read the "hype" and don't watch the streams.

I didn't, for just that reason.

To anybody who says Squad is managing the publicity wrong: Do you know what Squad's business actually is? It's not software development. They are, wait for it, a publicity company.

I think they probably know better than you.

To those who complain about the press getting the game first: I've been the press, it's a tremendous amount of work for little to no actual reward.

I have no interest in playing the bug filled compile of the day, I've done that too and it's a pain in the rear.

Think having your saves wiped out every update is bad? Try it when every update means daily. You'll never get anywhere. Oh and don't expect to play much either, cause bugs.

The "copy" of the software that is actual under development generally doesn't actually work. It must be polished and fixed before you can let people who don't understand wtf a pre-release-early-access-not-even-beta is get their hands on it. Otherwise you get a bazillion people *****ing about it, submitting completely crap bug reports, and generally slowing down everything.

I don't want that, do you?

I'd rather squad focused on making the game, rather than dealing with a bunch of whiners who think "early access alpha/pre-alpha" means the same thing as when EA releases a "beta" that. News flash: That's not a beta, that's a complete game being milked for publicity.

Most "Alpha" pieces of software don't actually work, at all, just as a note. Be happy Squad is taking the extra time to make the Alphas actually playable.

Look at this as a pre-order game. Then look at Squad giving you something to play with while the finish the game you've pre-ordered. Most software houses you can pre-order the game, but you won't be playing it till the official 1.0 release.

[Dirty Bob]

Early access is a way for developers to make money earlier, plain and simple. You're not a paying beta tester or anything else that you can call it that makes it seem better. It'd be a lot easier if everyone would just admit this to themselves instead of threads like this happening all the time.

[Daid]

YES! I fully agree! We're technically playtesting the game, and we should be able to test it.

No you are not. You got early access, which is something totally different. The test team, those are playtesting.

[Dodgey]

YES! I fully agree! We're technically playtesting the game, and we should be able to test it.

Well sure. In the same way that you play tested Halo 4 or Skyrim when they came out.

[ferram4]

I'm gonna argue against this from another perspective: something like this makes supporting plugin-based mods during the time around an update even more of a hassle than it already is.

Every KSP update risks a plugin breaking when the API changes, so mod versions need to be carefully checked to see if they're compatible with KSP versions. Now, if there are two versions of KSP out (for example, let's say OP's proposed system is worked out with 0.23 being the stable release and one of the 0.23.5 ARM releases being the unstable one), now I have two different versions that I need to support. KJR broke horribly with the update; I had to recode it to work with the new version in a way that broke back-compatibility. I either have to end support for the stable version, not bother with support for the unstable version, or try to maintain two different versions of the same mod to keep compatibility working.

Of course, no matter what option I take, people will come to me dropping useless bug reports about how the mod doesn't work, not mentioning what version of KSP they're running or what version of the mod they're running, which means that I can't tell whether the bug report is for a valid issue or the user trying to shove a square peg through a round hole. Modders already get a flurry of support requests around updates due to incompatibility issues, but those can be quickly fixed by updating KSP or the mod; this proposed system will just make things more aggravating for modders (because more support requests and KSP versions to deal with) and mod users (because modders slower to fix issues due to support backlog, mods might not be updated or supported for the version of KSP they've chosen to run, if support available for both which version to use can be confusing).

This situation will not only make things nastier for Squad to deal with around an update, it'll also make it nastier for all the modders to deal with at the same time.

[vexx32]

It also makes things a lot harder on the forum staff, too. The volume of practically useless "bug reports" back when Squad did this was phenomenal. :/

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Another thing - Are we really "Testing" the game? I mean, all it is is Early Access. Nothing anywhere saying that we are testing it, all we did is buy it as early access. All Early Access means is that game is released in Alpha, and Beta.

[MineAheadTV]

I'm gonna argue against this from another perspective: something like this makes supporting plugin-based mods during the time around an update even more of a hassle than it already is.

Every KSP update risks a plugin breaking when the API changes, so mod versions need to be carefully checked to see if they're compatible with KSP versions. Now, if there are two versions of KSP out (for example, let's say OP's proposed system is worked out with 0.23 being the stable release and one of the 0.23.5 ARM releases being the unstable one), now I have two different versions that I need to support. KJR broke horribly with the update; I had to recode it to work with the new version in a way that broke back-compatibility. I either have to end support for the stable version, not bother with support for the unstable version, or try to maintain two different versions of the same mod to keep compatibility working.

Of course, no matter what option I take, people will come to me dropping useless bug reports about how the mod doesn't work, not mentioning what version of KSP they're running or what version of the mod they're running, which means that I can't tell whether the bug report is for a valid issue or the user trying to shove a square peg through a round hole. Modders already get a flurry of support requests around updates due to incompatibility issues, but those can be quickly fixed by updating KSP or the mod; this proposed system will just make things more aggravating for modders (because more support requests and KSP versions to deal with) and mod users (because modders slower to fix issues due to support backlog, mods might not be updated or supported for the version of KSP they've chosen to run, if support available for both which version to use can be confusing).

This situation will not only make things nastier for Squad to deal with around an update, it'll also make it nastier for all the modders to deal with at the same time.

First of all, Ferram4 just commented on a thread of mine! Love your mods!

(Ok, celebrating over)

Anyway, That's true, IF you feel the need to support the buggy pre-release version. I wasn't really thinking in terms of people playing this with mods or anything, more as a way to play the update ahead of time and to aid squad in bug testing it.

[SkyHook]

The only thing that concerns me is the update timetable and content. Things take too long and there is too little playable content. If it's worth anything, I also think that Squad heavily accommodates players with little or no experience but does not take any action to appease the needs of experienced players.

[malkuth]

Well to be honest this has been one of the longest Alphas I have ever seen.. LOL.. But it does show the stamina of the games Player base when almost what 1 year and 6 months were still playing. Thats just a sign of a good game.. Minecraft of space.

[Vanamonde]

Squad heavily accommodates players with little or no experience but does not take any action to appease the needs of experienced players.

They have to make the basic features work before they can introduce advanced complication upon them. However, that has already started, with strictures such as career mode*, and the upcoming contracts, economics, and reputations systems. All of these ask players to keep performing the same kinds of flight feats, but to do so within constraints such as a limited selection of parts and finite funding.

*Yes, I know they've said that the aim of the tech tree system is guided introduction of parts for learning, but this doesn't mean that you're required to follow it that way. Plenty of us are finding career mode to be the interesting design challenge of performing advanced missions with limited parts.