Let's give SQUAD our point of view.

[technicalfool]

Beta should then be focused on adding new features.

Not that the terms are set in stone, but in many cases, "beta" means "all features complete, we're just hammering out bugs now."

[technicalfool]

No, don't you remember? We've always been at war with Eastasia. They never said it was impossible and wouldn't be implemented! Perish the thought! /sarcasm

I wouldn't mind the doubleback if they hadn't then gone and scrubbed every mention of their previous excuse from the forums and the dev comments. There's being wrong, and then there is retroactively editing your past statements to make it look like you never were.

I would still like to know where anybody has been banned for suggesting multiplayer.

I'm sure threads have been locked, but forum participants banned?

Anyway: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Multiplayer

[Red Iron Crown]

I remember multiplayer as being a "not in 1.0" feature, not an "it's impossible" feature.

[Dodgey]

So your argument is about apparent censorship? If Squad did say that it was impossible it's irrelevant because they were proven wrong. And I highly doubt they would retroactivity censor their posts. That's just silly. Also you seem to doubt that Squad can work on more than one thing at a time. Am I correct?

[BudgetHedgehog]

I don't doubt they can do two or more things at once, but my point still stands - if one of the things they're doing is multiplayer, I think they could be doing something more productive instead of it. Working on any number of early promises, fixing bugs, adding much needed parts (3.75 probe core or SAS unit mayhaps..?) or literally anything else. Don't half-ass two things, whole-ass one thing - they seem to have made several features and just left them basically incomplete/not fully working correctly with a shrug and a 'eh, it'll do', then moved onto developing an unrelated thing that simply will not be used by a large portion of players. Instead of, you know, fixing what they already have.

[Dodgey]

The biggest problem I see with your argument is that you are equating major a feature such as multiplayer with minor things like 3.75m parts. Bug fixes will always happen and won't really be affected. Again why won't the majority of players use it? It has been said many many times that multiplayer was a taboo subject because it was suggested so many times. At the moment they are working on the back end and it doesn't seem to be distracting them at all. I don't think it is fair to say that they are half making features and saying that will do. They are saying that will do for now as a foundation. Let's get the major features done, get it scope complete then we can go back and flesh it out. You must have heard them say they are working to get it scope complete.

That's what they are doing, getting up the bare walls before going back and painting.

[shadowsutekh]

I would still like to know where anybody has been banned for suggesting multiplayer.

I'm sure threads have been locked, but forum participants banned?

Anyway: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Multiplayer

People have never been banned over suggesting multiplayer. Threads closed yes but not for any form of censorship. It was made very clear that multiplayer was on the "what not to suggest list" with indications that it wasn't a no or never, but a "not right now" thing, though obviously things have changed regarding that topic.

[ArmchairGravy]

With .24 implementing the entire economy at once, I can very easily see Squad labeling the game as single-player feature complete. Then while MP is getting hammered out they can polish aerodynamics, IVAs, 3.75m parts, and the other bits and pieces. Once MP gets implemented they then move to beta and tweak balance and squash bugs.

[shizophrenic]

my 5 Cent to all multiplayer related arguments:

1. yes it would be nice to Play together with others.

2. my first, second and third hunch would be "impossible, to much Killers of fun (griefplay, Timing issues, skill of Players, etc.), the game is created with single Player in mind.

3. the communtiy pointed out ideas they didn't considered.

4. they changed their opinion on the Subjekt.

Why are you using that aganist them? Do you want them to completly ignore ideas from the communtity?

I am quite interrested in the way they think multiplayer would be fun. Personally i don't think they couldn't eleminate all the issues that i would consider a "no go" for multiplayer. So for me is all the time they spend into multiplayer probably wasted. But they decided they have a way. All i can (and want) to do now is wait to look at the result. If it Looks like fun i go and say "Guys my opinion was wrong great Job done". If it isn't then i ignore it completly and Play only the single player game part. If i am not sure i try the multiplayer part and decide then.

[regex]

2. my first, second and third hunch would be "impossile, to much Killers of fun (griefplay, Timing issues, skill of Players, etc.), the game is created with single Player in mind.

I highly doubt KSP is going to be an MMO like EVE-Online, you're probably going to be able to set up a server for you and some friends to play. That being said, there will probably also be some public servers where that sort of thing is encouraged for fun, and tears from the unexpected. There will also likely be server controls such as passwords, whitelists, blacklists, etc... so that carebears will be able to feel properly safe and sound.

[Northstar1989]

I'll give my 2 cents here real quickly, and then move on to other things, because I have an asteroid redirect mission design process waiting for me in the game (which is currently open/running in background- it doesn't hurt to let my interplanetary transfer inch towards their destinations while I write...)

First of all, I'm perfectly happy with the PACE of development. It's good for Squad to take its time to get things right, no arguments there.

However I *AM* worried that some absolutely necessary features will get left by the wayside, or relegated to the realm of mods, given the current development pattern...

Improved aerodynamics, resources, and (this isn't even on their list- but it absolutely should be) a procedural way to generate fuel tanks and wings to improve design flexibility, and reduce the clutter and catalog size of existing stock fuel tanks and wing parts, all feature highly on this list...

On the last of those- it's already been proven through mods that parameters of procedural parts can be limited by tech tree progression, to prevent this breaking Career mode... The system currently being developed by "Procedural Parts" mod should *STRONGLY* be considered for "Stockization", as should an aerodynamics module similar to FAR for the basis of the new aerodynamics system, and some of the ISRU concepts from mods such as KSP-Interstellar for a resources system...

I'm not whining for feature after feature. In fact, if they delivered the promised features for 0.24 (Contracts and Budgets), implemented these three features, and delivered a sound and smoothly-working multiplayer and science system, I wouldn't have much to complain about (that wouldn't stop me from still hoping for further improvements as icing on the cake- this game has a LOT of still-unmet potential...)- except for a need for code optimizations and bugfixes of course...

If I were to really look far ahead, I would say they could also do with re-working the NERVA engines into something a bit more balanced (possibly with the need for extra parts for heat management) and actually resembling a real nuclear thermal rocket (which is what they actually are in real life), and throwing in a few more planets- but none of that is critical, and the game could even do without those improvements- even if I think including them *highly* advisable...

I haven't been around long enough to see the earliest versions of KSP (I came in during 0.20.2), so I couldn't comment on how the pattern of updates has changed from the past; however I HAVE seen a change in Squad's latitudes towards the future of KSP. It seems like as time goes on, their goals keep becoming less and less ambitious, despite the continually-expanding player base...

With the exception of announcing multiplayer (which I know is HUGE), what new *big* features have they announced plans for recently? I can't remember any in 10 months I've been playing KSP... They created the game, so they should have bigger and more creative ideas than the players, right? On the other hand, I haven't seen many optimizations since the 0.21 update less than a week after I downloaded the game for the first time- most updates since have been dedicated to implementing what I understand were already-planned features.

So let me get this straight- they focus on adding planned features, but don't announce nay new ones except multiplayer for further ahead? And they don't do many bugfixes/optimizations either? It seems like they're toning DOWN their ambitions when they should be toning them UP given KSP's runaway sales success...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. I can understand the dangers of becoming the "Indie game that never gets finished"- but that trap often results from the extremely limited resources available to Indie development teams... At this point, given KSP's sales figures, Squad should have resources available for this game closer to the level of a small development studio that's turned out a number of games...

They can raise their prices even further as time goes on if they have to in order to hire more programmers for KSP without compromising their other goals- most gamers won't hesitate to purchase a game this great for a bit more $- especially since they're NOT engaging in any of the kind of filthy, dirty money-mongering that dominates major studios like SEGA, where every little feature (even ones that are half-baked and poorly-developed, or were already a locked part of the game at shipment, *cough* Total War: Rome II's "new" factions, *cough*...) costs you $5 or $10...

Edited May 15, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

Also:

I'm not saying they shouldn't do anything about stuff like the lack of IVA's, the "Precooler" parts that don't-actually-do-anything other than add deadweight to your spaceplanes, or the need to add more planets or re-balance many stock parts (like the NERVA's, as I mentioned before- which aren't OP'd compared to real life- until you consider they require absolutely no heat radiators...)

Only that those changes should take a lower priority than *BIG* things like massively improving the running-joke aerodynamics module (in fact, the current model ought to be thrown out the window entirely, burned and trampled upon, and used as a doggie chew-toy - and then the aerodynamics model rebuilt from the ground up to resemble something like FAR...), or actually adding budgets (which is, thankfully, what they're doing now...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 15, 2014 by Northstar1989

[tntristan12]

The problem with relegating certain updates to the "low priority - we'll do it later" bin is that eventually that bin starts overflowing as the larger features are the ones seeing more development. Eventually they get forgotten about because the devs are only human, or get so buried underneath the code for larger features that finding and fixing them is a lot more time consuming, making addressing them less attractive. It's a self-perpetuating problem, which is why I advocate a policy of "take care of the earlier details while you still can." I do agree that it can go so far in the other direction that the devs get bogged down in micro-management scenarios, but I trust Squad's ability to strike the balance between micro-management and feature creep.

[Seret]

we are now at the point where I think rather than adding new features, they should be improving the features they've already implemented.

We're not quite there yet, I'm sure they've got a long list of these small tidy-up jobs that will get attention once the game is feature-complete.

[r4pt0r]

SNIP- *various good points* -SNIP

other than resources being "absolutely necessary" i agree with your post wholeheartedly.

[HafCoJoe]

Personally I want to see mk2 and mk3 IVA and that's the only real thing I want to see upcoming that I wish was already included. I mean, SQUAD has done an amazing job of KSP so far and there really can't be any hard complaining about something you've signed a contract on. Yes there can be more done, and maybe update .25 should be focused on fixing only old problems and updating already implemented features? Like "Le grande olde upldate" or something.

[Dodgey]

While I do want a polishing update like you Northstar, I can see why they are doing it the way they are. The devs have talked about scope complete multiple times, and this is what they are striving for at the moment. They are trying to implement the major mechanics of the game (career mode) before going back and polishing what they have done, while it is not clear to us what the road map of the game is, I'm sure that Squad has a basic one at least saying what scope complete is, they know the basics of what they are going to do and concentrate on one aspect of the game at a time (well it seems that way to me). I mean how many updates has career mode taken? Do I wish that Squad would spend more time on polishing? Yes, absolutely, but I can see why they aren't losing sleep over it.

[Northstar1989]

Personally I want to see mk2 and mk3 IVA and that's the only real thing I want to see upcoming that I wish was already included. I mean, SQUAD has done an amazing job of KSP so far and there really can't be any hard complaining about something you've signed a contract on. Yes there can be more done, and maybe update .25 should be focused on fixing only old problems and updating already implemented features? Like "Le grande olde upldate" or something.

It would be nice if, before they added Mk3 internals, they fixed the Mk3 cockpit's offset from normal 2.5 meter attachment nodes (causing it to hang below the main fuselage of spaceplanes in a weird sort of way...)

Actually, I think they could take a serious page out of B9 Aerospace's book, and redo a lot of the spaceplane parts entirely to be bigger and heavier... Coupled with a procedural/stretchy system for generating fuel tanks and even structural fuselages, and wings, they could actually REDUCE the total number of parts in the stock game, while simultaneously giving a lot of heavier spaceplane and rocketry tech the "Stockization" treatment...

Currently spaceplanes are far too lightweight/small and buggy in the stock game. Building large wings out of 50 parts each (which by necessity forces design of smaller spaceplanes), when they could easily be created out of a single "Stockized" procedural wing part, and having Mk3 cockpits that have a screwy offset from other 2.5 meter parts doesn't help with either point...

I would like to see a day where, with both spaceplanes and rockets, players don't need to make use of 120 stock parts to build heavy lifters- they can build the same designs with 40 or 50 parts... (easily possible with "Stockization" of some of the features in the Procedural Parts and Procedural Dynamics mods...) This would make the game run a LOT smoother for most players, and could be balanced budget-wise by making larger procedural parts cost more money...

Regards,

Northstar

Edited May 16, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Northstar1989]

While I do want a polishing update like you Northstar, I can see why they are doing it the way they are. The devs have talked about scope complete multiple times, and this is what they are striving for at the moment. They are trying to implement the major mechanics of the game (career mode) before going back and polishing what they have done, while it is not clear to us what the road map of the game is, I'm sure that Squad has a basic one at least saying what scope complete is, they know the basics of what they are going to do and concentrate on one aspect of the game at a time (well it seems that way to me). I mean how many updates has career mode taken? Do I wish that Squad would spend more time on polishing? Yes, absolutely, but I can see why they aren't losing sleep over it.

The danger with focusing on reaching "scope complete" is that they will abandon many useful or necessary features in order to get there, and because they feel the need for optimizations and bugfixes breathing down their neck... If, on the other hand, they get many of the optimizations and bugfixes done first, then they feel a lot less pressure to an arbitrary line with features.

So, counter-intuitively, focusing on bugfixes and optimizations early on actually leads to *MORE* features in the final product...

Regards,

Northstar

[boomerdog2000]

The danger with focusing on reaching "scope complete" is that they will abandon many useful or necessary features in order to get there, and because they feel the need for optimizations and bugfixes breathing down their neck... If, on the other hand, they get many of the optimizations and bugfixes done first, then they feel a lot less pressure to an arbitrary line with features.

So, counter-intuitively, focusing on bugfixes and optimizations early on actually leads to *MORE* features in the final product...

Regards,

Northstar

They're not going to abandon anything. Could you imagine the community's response if Squad called the game complete without IVAs for the Mk 2 and 3 cockpits? or without finishing career mode? It is in their best interest to finish the game completely in all its aspects. The most likely reason they haven't finished the IVAs is because they plan to redo the pods exterior as well. No reason to build an IVA if it won't match the exterior.

Focusing on bugfixes and optimizations for an entire update may eventually lead to more features but that will require an extended period of time building fixes that may be broken in the next update and require another fix, which is more time the devs will need to take, still without actually adding any new features.

[Dodgey]

The danger with focusing on reaching "scope complete" is that they will abandon many useful or necessary features in order to get there, and because they feel the need for optimizations and bugfixes breathing down their neck... If, on the other hand, they get many of the optimizations and bugfixes done first, then they feel a lot less pressure to an arbitrary line with features.

So, counter-intuitively, focusing on bugfixes and optimizations early on actually leads to *MORE* features in the final product...

Regards,

Northstar

So basically work from the top down instead from the ground up? Why is it not good to build the foundation before fleshing it out? It doesn't make any sense to fully optimize the game now. Ad it will change in the future and you are back where you start. I'm not understanding why you think this is a good idea.

[NoMrBond]

They're not going to abandon anything. Could you imagine the community's response if Squad called the game complete without IVAs for the Mk 2 and 3 cockpits? or without finishing career mode? It is in their best interest to finish the game completely in all its aspects. The most likely reason they haven't finished the IVAs is because they plan to redo the pods exterior as well. No reason to build an IVA if it won't match the exterior.

Focusing on bugfixes and optimizations for an entire update may eventually lead to more features but that will require an extended period of time building fixes that may be broken in the next update and require another fix, which is more time the devs will need to take, still without actually adding any new features.

During the last Squadcast Max metioned a new modeller they had brought on (probably from this) who is currently working on updating the plane/spaceplane stuff, hopefully this includes the cockpit IVA's. This could have been one of his patented Hagrid announcements though

I was kind of hoping we'd get an introduction or announcement about the new hire from Rowsdower, maybe they'll show them off after their first content package is ready or during a Squadcast?

Edited May 16, 2014 by NoMrBond

[Alguien]

So basically work from the top down instead from the ground up? Why is it not good to build the foundation before fleshing it out? It doesn't make any sense to fully optimize the game now. Ad it will change in the future and you are back where you start. I'm not understanding why you think this is a good idea.

Squad is ALREADY working from the top down by pushing calling sandbox complete and doing career this soon while leaving other half-done features to the sides, fixing aerodynamics, make planets more interesting, life support, renetry heat, modular dificulty, relays, making bases/spacestations have a point... most of this affects both sandbox and career mode, yet its being left to God knows when if not ignored.

Could you imagine the community's response if Squad called the game complete without IVAs for the Mk 2 and 3 cockpits?

probably something along the lines of "OH MY GAWD SQUAD IS A TINY BITTY COMPANY! STOP BEING SO ENTITLED! JUST DOWNLOAD A MOD FROM CURSEâ„¢ TO FIX IT! THEY WILL PATCH IT MAYBE!" which isn't actually that rare to hear.

[Tuareg]

hmmm hmmm, i see not I'm the only one has problems with squad's incompetency the problem is that they seem to lack of a proper developer, somebody can write proper c# code and can solve things like multi-threading or could go around the imprecisity of vector calculations (none of these are impossible) and lacking of somebody can make animations. what they provide from patch to patch are things can be made of any amateurs. and no, i dont want them to polish the game to perfection in alpha, but SAS shouldnt play pendulum with my spacecraft, crafts shouldnt fall through the planetsurface, parts shouldnt wobble on eachother (especially wheels and landing struts) and 200 object shouldnt make the game run on 15 fps when a superdecorative game with hundreds of fully destructible physically modeled objects can run on 120+ fps. at least SOME polishing would be nice.

also, what kinda logic moves them when they create different size object but they just miss some from the different sizes? of the things like one propfuel can be surface attached but the others cannot be? or why on the side of the wheel is the most stable position of a rover?

also. for all those say they shouldnt optimize yet just fill with content and optimize later... do you have a shed full of tools? how you keep order there? do you just drop everything into the middle and at the evening you organise them or you put them back to their place where you took them from? its the same with the softwares too. its a lot easier to make a module, optimise it, add an other module, bugfix and optimise it etc etc etc... it will be a nightmare to add multithreading and/or optimise a full turd when it has 2 million lines of code

[shizophrenic]

Well then Tuareg. When and where can i dl "Tuareg's Space Programm" with all the nice things you mentioned... and i don't mind if it is EARLY ACCESS since it will be perfectly bug free since pre Alpha and made by you. ahh and since you didn't mentioned it, i still can expect it to run on Win, MacOS and Linux.

Edited May 16, 2014 by shizophrenic