Dev speed and what should be next in the pipeline

[MKI]

In light of the lul that is time between KSP updates i find myself swaying to other in development games. Every game developer has their own speed that they want their game to progress. Squad themselves seem to be happy with the current pace of things, with multiple month cycles going between updates. I personally am fine with what ever speed means a quality product. But I also feel speed is a big factor in gaining momentum.

Update .22: addition of a whole new mode, Career, science parts, development,biomes

Update .23: tweaking of Career, new science parts, tweakables

Update .23.5: Asteroids, NASA Involvement, the SLS, and multiple under the hood modifications to improve overall gameplay.

The last update took the most time, and .22 also took a large chunk of time. The next update has this so far instore:

Update .24/.25: currency, reputation, contracts, recovery system, newer parts, and new UI features.

I feel the next update will easily be one of the biggest updates to the game EVER. This could be one of the most focal updates the game has seen and possibly will ever see, as the framework of Career Mode and thus the main game will be set. But once that is done then what? Would it be wise to dive right back into missing fundamentals that need to be addressed such as a new aerodynamic model, or go down to the little things and tweak more parts and add new ones. Or just do housekeeping on what is already implemented partially, such as biomes and tweakables.

I feel after this update, which is bound to still be far away from being released, the Dev's should take a step back from the heavy updates. Instead, focus on what needs to be finished, rather than added. Not only has the last update sucked up A LOT of momentum, it also sucked up a lot of time. This next update is bound to take similar amounts of effort, depending on how far back the Dev's actually had people working on it. (they said they were working on it along with the .23.5 update)

Regardless i feel the community would appreciate at least a small interval where updates would be more frequent, and changes more minor but much needed. Its one thing to implement large changes in large time frames, another to implement small changes in small amounts of time, and a whole new thing to switch between the two styles. As i said before many things need housekeeping. These things really aren't much more than half implemented ideas that show great promise, but aren't finished yet.

Examples are:

1. IVA views

2. Texture updates

3. SpacePlane parts touchup(goes with the Texture update)

4. More Biomes

5. more tweakables

This goes along with changes that will defiantly be needed once the next update comes. Such as Currency tweaking, Reputation tweaking and more contract adjustments. Such minor adjustments would make the game feel closer to finished, than further from it. This all goes back to momentum and spirit of the community and their relation to the Dev team. We get the scope of the game still needs to increase, but hell we still only have 3 bodies with biomes???

I'm not here asking for a new Aerodynamic model, or resources, or mining, or a whole new game play aspect. I'm asking for some focus on what has been done, not what needs to be done. Getting the smaller things out of the way now and giving them to players will respond to what they have been asking for a while. Especially with things such as the age of the Space Plane parts, and limited Biome selection.

Its time to pick up the pace and pick up some of the pieces, i still can't see out of my MK3 cockpit!

Edited June 9, 2014 by MKI

[Vaporo]

I think that there two ways of doing just about anything.

1. Create a framework, something that gets you through all of the major parts of whatever you are doing so that you can see how all the parts work together, and then go back and modify, flesh out, and just generally improve the framework. (build the frame of a skyscraper before adding walls and lights)

2. Create each part as a finished product, where everything fits together without much modification, which means that you will have far fewer end-game adjustments and tweaks, but you won't be able to see what the end product will look like until you are virtually done. (build each floor of the skyscraper in its entirety before adding the next floor)

The former seems to be the path that Squad has chosen, and it is the better options for large projects, especially ones where you're not entirely certain what all you're going to add to the final product.

Of course, they are making their framework more fleshed out than I would be comfortable making it (they can release it to the public, after all), but they are still using the framework methodology, I think.

[CaptRobau]

Examples are:

1. IVA views

2. Texture updates

3. SpacePlane parts touchup(goes with the Texture update)

4. More Biomes

5. more tweakables

I agree with the general idea of an update full of small changes, but not necessary with all your examples:

1. IVA views

If they're going to do this, they need to do this well. Just a spiffy new interior model will look nice, but that does nothing for playability which is the real problem with current IVAs. RPM improves IVA playability, but it is far more complex than just a new IVA and thus goes against the idea of a small-changes update.

3. SpacePlane parts touchup(goes with the Texture update)

While the spaceplane parts do look like crap, I feel that it be better served by a separate update. Like the IVAs, a nice model/texture will make it look better but the core of the problem with air/spaceplanes is not how they look but how they play. It's better to design the new parts around a better aerodynamics model and a better atmospheric engine model (the current ones act more like rockets than real airbreathing engines) than having to adjust the new systems around the parts you've already made. If they everything in one go, it's going to be a much better way to for once and for all properly integrate atmospheric flight into the game.

4. More Biomes

Very much agree. The systems are there, all they need to do is come up with more science definitions and assign a biome map to each body.

5. more tweakables

Another +1 from me.

[Red Iron Crown]

Multiple small updates take more time and testing than one consolidated one. I say that as someone who is just as hungry for updates as everyone else.

I would love it if 0.25 was a "polishing" update.

[BudgetHedgehog]

The thing about more biomes is that they will easily and quickly complete the tech tree. Even forgetting rebalancing Minmus, just adding biomes to Duna would easily grant you 1000+ points upon return (depending on if you land near a boundary/have a way of visiting more than one biome). Add in a visit to Ike on the way and you really only need one trip to Duna to complete the tree.

I think what would be best is remake the tech tree. Keep the first half as it is, so people can actually get the tech needed to go places, but add in more nodes, separate out the parts, increase science needed etc.. Otherwise, people can just go to Duna once and be done with the tree. The only reason to go other places would be because you now can, not because you need to. I know the same argument can be made about Minmus now, but that's because it's so OP. Should be more in line with the Mun, possibly a little bit higher.

[Red Iron Crown]

The economy of science points will change when you're using them to trade for money or reputation, more biomes without a tech tree rework might still be balanced.

[MR4Y]

Seems like a nice idea to resolve the always constant lack of communication and transparency between the community and developers, also without depeding on 'oranges' to repass information, like forum moderators.

My guess is that this will be ignored in favor of maintaining the status quo, like it has always been.

[CaptRobau]

The thing about more biomes is that they will easily and quickly complete the tech tree. Even forgetting rebalancing Minmus, just adding biomes to Duna would easily grant you 1000+ points upon return (depending on if you land near a boundary/have a way of visiting more than one biome). Add in a visit to Ike on the way and you really only need one trip to Duna to complete the tree.

The tech tree was balanced based on the biomes available when it was added (Kerbin and Mun). If they add the rest of the biomes, I imagine they'd redo all the science values to compensate. Also filling out the tech tree doesn't seem to be the end goal of the career mode. The devs have said that it was a way to introduce new players to all the various parts. Exploration is the goal and science, contracts, etc. are ways to help you explore.

[Jas1126]

Something that really confuses me is why their team is still so small. Are sales so terrible that they can't bring in a few more people? Temp-hires or volunteers (College students looking for experience) maybe? Just something to speed up progress.

I thought the point of Early Access was to get more funding for a more efficient development process. Starting to think otherwise.

[Red Iron Crown]

Jas1126, it would be worth your time to learn about The Mythical Man-hour. Adding developers doesn't necessarily speed development, and can often slow it.

[MR4Y]

Jas1126, it would be worth your time to learn about The Mythical Man-hour. Adding developers doesn't necessarily speed development, and can often slow it.

Although you should be reminded of the Myth of the Genius Programmer. SQUAD has been contracting people known for the quality of their mods above the rest (C7, Bac9, Nova, etc.), which either abandoned development to pursue better opportunities or are on hold taking care of other stuff, instead of working with the team after hiring.

How that has helped game development if at all? Who knows...

[Rowsdower]

Let's get this thread back on track here. Would you prefer updates that continue the size and scope of the way they've been going or smaller, more incremental updates?

[Red Iron Crown]

Let's get this thread back on track here. Would you prefer updates that continue the size and scope of the way they've been going or smaller, more incremental updates?

Which way do the devs think will allow them to reach feature completeness sooner? That way.

Of course we as players would like more frequent updates, but I'm not sure that's what's best for the game. More releases means more time in the testing phase. More frequent updates means more work for modders to keep their mods compatible rather than developing new features or other mods. Updates often break saves, so there's the risk that that will happen more frequently. I'd prefer larger less frequent updates to smaller more frequent ones.

[Dodgey]

Larger more featureful updates please.

[coolitic]

They would do it faster, but Unity causes development hindrances when there is much content, and that's why they are taking so much time.

Hopefully Unity 5 will cause less problems.

[sumghai]

Let's get this thread back on track here. Would you prefer updates that continue the size and scope of the way they've been going or smaller, more incremental updates?

I'm definitely down for less frequent but larger updates.

[regex]

Let's get this thread back on track here. Would you prefer updates that continue the size and scope of the way they've been going or smaller, more incremental updates?

Less frequent/larger updates with features of quality.

[MR4Y]

If we're talking bug fixes, then a good portion of the guys here should stop calling the game an alpha. Since bug fixes are not features.

As for the false dilemma, neither. We don't even know what's been done in regards to features/updates to choose between frequent or eventual updates.

[Javster]

I'd rather have frequent small updates. Just to keep me interested.

[rkman]

1. IVA views

2. Texture updates

3. SpacePlane parts touchup(goes with the Texture update)

4. More Biomes

5. more tweakables

I think 4 and 5 are entirely reasonable and i expect to see some of that in the near future.

But the other points are about game assets many of which might very well be just placeholders. No point in updating those if they will eventually be replaced by better prettier assets.

[Pulstar]

Point 3 is on the agenda for the near future from what Maxmaps told us in a squadcast two or three weeks ago. Hugo is probably working on that already, as per what was written in the recent devnotes.

As far as the rate of development is concerned, I think that the current approach is good. Release when a feature is fully functional even if it lacks content. There are pretty big frameworks that have to be implemented so it is better the devs can do them start to finish.

[LethalDose]

I'd rather have frequent small updates. Just to keep me interested.

Yeah, IMO Squad puts a lot more polish into each of their updates than many other indy studios with early access games, which is one possible reason that development moves at its current pace. I would also prefer more frequent smaller updates.

Also on this:

Let's get this thread back on track here. Would you prefer updates that continue the size and scope of the way they've been going or smaller, more incremental updates?

My statement above stands, fully understanding we'd get multiple smaller updates with a few parts, tweaks, opimizations, etc, before we get the big systematic updates, contracts, budgets and... Uh... whatever else in the realm of "scope complete" that I can't add because Squad won't say what that is.

Also, I would understand if any update has some bugs when it goes live. Because that's part of "early access".

Edited June 12, 2014 by LethalDose

[rkman]

I have no problem with few but large updates, but i do think there is a place for the occasional hotfix. There have been a few in the past, but also some not that i think should have been: the fuel usage bug, and currently the glitchy ARM stack decoupler. It's hard to imagine those are not trivial to fix (a mod that fixed the fuel usage bug was created only a few days after release, and the stack decoupler is just a part using well established code, looks like something was goofed).

[boony]

Which way do the devs think will allow them to reach feature completeness sooner? That way.

100% agree.

Latest dev note from Harvester covers that topic:

Working with minimal content during development isn't a bad thing for developers. I can't count how many times I've dreaded the prospect of having to go through all the 170+ parts and their configs, to make some tweak or another. Having less parts in the game would have certainly made life easier for us on many a situation... It would also have made for a much less interesting game. This, as with so many other things, is something we have to maintain in balance.

So 4 and 5 may slow down development in the long run, which means a -1 from me.

1 and 2 seem like eye candy and so i can forego it in favour of new features.

Less frequent updates mean less frequent waiting for mods and installs, so that's absolutely fine with me.

[pxi]

I'm pretty happy with the current rate of updates.

I would love to see more dev-blogs in the vein of Harvesters procedural craters article however. Part of the appeal of buying into the early-access / alpha model (to me at least), is the potential to get an insight to the development process itself.