Can too slow of development kill KSP?

[LethalDose]

Another mod that would be awesome to partially implement into the game would be Engineer Redux. It is the #1 most essential mod in my opinion, because it shows you the delta-V of your craft. I really think that with KerbalEdu being developed and stuff, delta-V and TWR readouts will become more and more needed additions to the game. Adding these would probably be a lot more difficult than adding Kethane, though, since you'd also probably want to put a delta-V map into the game in the Tracking Station, and create custom GUI windows for the TWR and delta-V readouts so you don't get "flooded with numbers."

I agree with implementing stock readouts for things like dV, mass, TWR with options about which to display. It truly boggles my mind that there are players opposed to stock display of that information.

I don't know that adding that as a "partial implementation of Engineer Redux" is the best way to do it though. I think they should just be readouts.

[Andrew Hansen]

I don't know that adding that as a "partial implementation of Engineer Redux" is the best way to do it though. I think they should just be readouts.

By that, I meant that perhaps the code of Engineer Redux could be used, but a new GUI could be put in place that fits with stock KSP better.

[rkman]

You may not be aware, but there are other engines out there.

, for example, is much more powerful, and not free, but could bring a whole new level to the game in KSP 2, The Kerbal Initiative!

I very much doubt that any of the existing well-known game engines is capable of handling a gameworld the size of a solar system. A gameworld of such a size requires "floating origin", and only a few propietary space game/visualisation engines (including ksp) have that, because outside of space games there is as of yet no reason to have it.

Game engines are like programming languages: each is suited to a specific purpose. It is not a given that a game engine made for first person shooters is suitable for a space game.

[Jean Deaux]

I very much doubt that any of the existing well-known game engines is capable of handling a gameworld the size of a solar system. A gameworld of such a size requires "floating origin", and only a few propietary space game/visualisation engines (including ksp) have that, because outside of space games there is as of yet no reason to have it.

Game engines are like programming languages: each is suited to a specific purpose. It is not a given that a game engine made for first person shooters is suitable for a space game.

I think your information is a little out of date, mainly thanks to Star Citizen which is an upcoming (alpha DFM module is now out) which is a massive universe real physics space sim, right down to the maneuvering jets. Granted a couple of years ago you'd be spot on, but times.... they be changing!!! Click on the Cryengine link above, it's their showcase of current games in production.

Now I'm not saying it's going to be a direct, or even easy, port over. What I am saying is that KSP is worthy of being ported over and expanded upon. But again, a future release, let's get this one done first.

[FleshJeb]

..... Scansat, Procedural Fairings, RemoteTech, TAC life support ...

Completely agreed. (Except I now roleplay my RemoteTech requirements due to the mod's bugginess).

Now, before someone else arrives to call me fanboy, let me tell you that I don't like the direction of development. I would like some features from my "essential mod list" added to stock

I had a realization: I'm also disappointed with the direction of development--KSP at it's best is an AMAZING sandbox, full of wonders and challenges. It seems as though the devs want to go down the road of encouraging even more micromanagement and railroading of experience. We (I) need more stuff to do, but less restrictions on HOW and WHY to do it.

I don't play Career, because collecting science is tedious, and sometimes you just want that one part for a great design, and it's way up the tree (Ladders, anyone?).

I'm not interested in Contracts, because I don't want the game providing me with goals or limitations (outside of physics); I have plenty of my own. I also have a life and a job where I get to fulfill contracts and manage money. I don't really want to do it in my spare time.

My favorite moment so far in the game has been hovering a VTOL 20m off a cliff face looking for a damned monolith that I had located with ScanSat satellites that were hooked up to my RemoteTech network. Days had been spent designing the infrastructure and the plane. Multiple attempts and crashes had been made, parts scattered all across the landscape. Kerbals needed to be rescued from mountaintops. Eventually, I found the the Monolith, and everybody went home. What a great day.

MOAR planets, MOAR easter eggs, MOAR sensors that do more than just return a boring text result. Plus a few tools to make easier and less tedious. (The subassembly manager is the best thing ever). In short, things that spark a desire to DO, and tools to remove unnecessary obstacles or tedium in getting them done.

For all those complaints, KSP is still the best game ever made. Thanks, Squad. :-D

(And thank you to the forum mods who put up with our crap.)

[Javster]

First of all, let me get this out of the way: I like KSP. It's fun.

BUT

The last update was in December (The ARM pack was not an update for the purposes of this post). It is now June. In 0.23, we got RAPIER engines, tweakables, and a small polish of the Science system. To me, KSP is acting like a completed game, with much slower updates, and a selected testing team. Only this game is by no means finished. It is in Alpha. I don't feel it is treated like an Alpha, where players actively test the game. There is a testing team, for updates which come out and have bugs anyway. The bugs are not the problem. The problem is that Squad take some time to produce these updates, partly due to the "Experimentals" phase, and yet the updates we get are not always ready for playing. When 0.21 arrived, it was almost unplayable due to the amount of bugs. And yet they claim to have tested them.

I feel there are three options:

1. Act like a finished game, take your time with updates, test them extensively and release them complete. PRODUCE FINISHED UPDATES

or

2. Act like an Alpha, and produce updates regularly, don't worry about the bugs, that's what we're for. ALLOW US TO TEST THE UPDATES AS YOU MAKE THEM

Maybe add an opt-in program where we decide whether we want access to obviously unfinished updates to help with testing, or wait for the more polished updates.

My final summary is that Squad should pick one format and stick with it.

[Dodgey]

Honestly I don't know how many times these points have been addressed in this thread alone.

1. More this or more that doesn't solve anything, all it does it give you another shiny thing to look at for 10 seconds. Eventually you will get board as you did with our current shiny things and the cycle starts again.

2. The ARM was an update, it included many of the features which were set to be released with 0.24. It was a full update whether you like it or not.

3. Squad doesn't let us test the updates because it simply isn't economical, the size of the community doesn't allow testing along the same lines as the dedicated testing group. When the community was smaller they could do this, but as we grew it became more and more difficult to sort through the bug reports. In any case it doesn't matter, we are not testers for this game any more than any other game. We are consumers, I kindly direct you to the EULA where it states not only that you bought the game in its current state and Squad is not required to release any more versions, it also states that Squad is not required to maintain contact with the community in any way shape or form.

[Monger]

I had a realization: I'm also disappointed with the direction of development--KSP at it's best is an AMAZING sandbox, full of wonders and challenges. It seems as though the devs want to go down the road of encouraging even more micromanagement and railroading of experience. We (I) need more stuff to do, but less restrictions on HOW and WHY to do it.

This is one of the ugly sides of an early access game: a lot of players buy the game for what it might become, not what it is. Many consider this kind of an invest, and it is actually promoted that way.

But this is not the case: you buy the game "as is". Squad made more than clear that there is no guarantee that there will always be a next release, and that all planned features will be finished.

You shouldn't buy a game that you don't want in its current state. Because the game might never reach another state, or at least not the state you expect it to be.

No matter what Squad does now, they will alienate at least a few of their customers: either those who want KSP to be more of a sandbox game, or those who want it to be more like a tycoon game.

However, Squad stated early on that their goal is the latter: a mission-based "Space Program", this is why it is called KSP. This is what you bought, so don't expect Squad to change everything just because you want to.

[Justin Kerbice]

However, Squad stated early on that their goal is the latter: a mission-based "Space Program", this is why it is called KSP. This is what you bought, so don't expect Squad to change everything just because you want to.

At least, release it like they have done allow to change way if:

-community wants something that was not part of the initial plan,

-SQUAD agreed to change its way

The most dramatic thing for a game company would be to do something THEY want but almost no-one want at all !

(that may explain why many released games are crap full of bugs these days, just to avoid to waste too much money in a potential failure)

[coolitic]

Unity 5 will hopefully solve most of our woes

[Andrew Hansen]

Everyone keeps on talking about about how "the community" wants something and Squad doesn't "comply" with their wishes. But actually, the community isn't one person. It's lots of people, with many different ideas about where they want the direction of the game to go. It's fine for Squad to make decisions by itself without referring to the community, because it knows better many times. I believe its partnership with Curse was one of those situations. Squad obviously had a deal with Curse that ensured not many ads would be displayed on their Curse page. It would take the hassle out of having to support a mod hosting website and act as a reliable place to host mods.

It may be true that new versions are being released less often, but because they have less bugs, it means those bugs don't have to be fixed later. Bugs have to be fixed at some time or another, and so why not fix them (as many as possible) before a version is released?

I think one of the greatest changes that Squad has made is to start doing experimentals just as new features are being developed to reduce the testing phase and combine it with the developing phase.

That said, I still hold to my opinion that implementing some high-quality mods into KSP would drastically speed up its development time. Yes, when you import foreign code into the game you don't know it inside out and fixing bugs could be difficult, but many mods have been developed for so long that most of the bugs have likely been ironed out already.

[Monger]

The most dramatic thing for a game company would be to do something THEY want but almost no-one want at all !

True, but it also a very bad idea to try to appeal to all tastes. There is a reason why mainstream is often considered as "mediocre".

Every design decision has always pros and cons. Me, for example, I would never have agreed to an open mod support so early on. Your game's popularity may rise with good mods, but bad mods will hurt your reputation, as well. Even worse: you have to maintain compatibility for popular mods, even if it hurts your own development process. And you need to compete with half-baked content all the time, no matter what your own vision of the game is.

Squad made a few decisions like that, that may be popular in the community, but actually hurt the game and them quite a lot. I admire the way they handle this conflict, I think they are doing an amazing job. As mentioned many times: the community is not a homogenous mass with a single mind. There are always different opinions and expectations. Squad can't and won't satisfy all of them.

[the_bT]

Everyone keeps on talking about about how "the community" wants something and Squad doesn't "comply" with their wishes. But actually, the community isn't one person. It's lots of people, with many different ideas about where they want the direction of the game to go.

I'm going to jump in right there. This is actually very true and very dangerous I think. I like to call that the alpha-oversell effect. When you start selling a game unfinished you can try as much as you want to communicate your vision for the final product, everybody will fill in the still missing pieces with their personal hopes and dreams about the perfect game. Therefore you probably sell more copies then you would have if the game had been finished.

This is not a bad thing however, it is not some sort of scam engineered to maximize profits. Its merely a downside to a system that has a lot of upsides as well.

In my opinion the only way you can mitigate this problem is to allow modding as much and as easy as possible. And Squad has done exactly that so far. Wherever they take the game from here, there will be someone modding it in the complete opposite direction. It is more likely for everyone to find a game that is close to their personal vision.