Where are we at with future plans.

[Seshins]

Hey guys,

So ive had Kerbal for over a year now and have 300ish hours logged. I'll also put a disclaimer here that im not suggesting features, content, time frames or anything of the sort, and understand 100% the game is in Development, Early Access, Alpha etc etc.

We have 3 lists of what not to suggest, what has been suggested, and "planned features".

I was wondering if the Dev's or someone in the know could answer this for me. With the growing list of features people would like, it seems like the true planned features for the game are starting to draw question marks. It would be great if the Dev's at this point of the development could maybe give an updated list of what they will still be putting into the game, what is questionable, and what is off for good.

Two of the features i looked forward to the most when buying the game last year, was the Discovery/Observatory type mechanic, and interactive IVA's, however there have been no real offical word on either.

Also on a side note - maybe split the suggestions forum into sub forums? For planets, Universe, Physics, Parts etc etc. Would make it a bit easier to look for a specific suggestion.

Dan

[Red Iron Crown]

The devs are fairly cautious about discussing what is planned and what isn't. A portion of the community treats such statements as unbreakable promises and are upset if changes are made to them. Some of the more obvious examples would be the addition of multiplayer after it was said that it likely wouldn't be in 1.0, and the removal of the planned resources mechanic when testing revealed the implementation was not fun.

So, while I too would love to have more information about the "roadmap" for where KSP is going, I don't think it likely we'll see much more than the focus for the next update.

[LethalDose]

Earlier this year, the devs announced the goal was to get the game "scope complete" (all major features implemented) by the end of 2014. We've been asking for a definition of what "scope complete" entails basically since that time. We haven't gotten yet, and I don't expect we will until the time it's actually scope complete.

[JimmyAgent007]

Its possible they dont even know, they might have a general idea but depending on how things work out, what we say here online, what modders show is possible, or any other things that happen, they might simply want to remain flexible. Anyone whos been on the forum for any degree of time knows how hostile some people get when something gets announced or talked about and then gets pushed or tabled. As a result they need to keep things quiet just to avoid the backlash. Harve could have said 6 months ago that he was working on 64bit and people would have been getting on his case the whole time as they are now about the other OS 64bit versions. Or he could have just saw the modders pull it off and figure why not put it in. Either way it seems like he cant win against some people so they choose to keep things quiet so that speculation stays that way until they are finished something so they can confirm it once its done. Sucks for us who are curious but some spoil it for the rest of us. This is just my theory and im sure it will draw flak but if people didnt react so poorly to things then we might actually get more information.

[xcorps]

Earlier this year, the devs announced the goal was to get the game "scope complete" (all major features implemented) by the end of 2014. We've been asking for a definition of what "scope complete" entails basically since that time. We haven't gotten yet, and I don't expect we will until the time it's actually scope complete.

I thought it was clear.

If you weren’t around when we announced Scope Completion as our goal back then, let me recap: Scope-Complete means that every major gameplay system in the game is implemented, even if its content is limited. It means all the necessary support for the game’s content exists and can be expanded upon.

Why is there any follow up to that needed?

[Seshins]

I understand scope completion is near - so core gameplay features will be completed - i was more hoping for a new perspective on what extra features they still want to add like the two examples i gave in the OP.

[LethalDose]

I thought it was clear. Why is there any follow up to that needed?

What's not clear is what "The major game play systems" are. To the best of my knowledge, a list of these systems has never been made explicit. It could be that there will be no more "major game play systems" after 0.24, or there could be a dozen more systems to implement.

They've never said, so there's obviously follow-up required.

Basically saying "it's done when there's nothing left to add" is meaningless tautology if you don't know what's left to add.

Edited June 26, 2014 by LethalDose

[Guest]

what's left to add.

It's a surprise because hype~

[MKI]

The number of extra features are numerous. Im sure they do not release what they have planned out for the game for a couple reasons.

Namely it would upset people if they do not actually get around to implementing them for one reason or another. And it would put actual limits to what the game is going to become. Currently there is still hope for anything as the game is not set in stone. (most of it is though)

Ill take the updates one step at a time. Squad updates KSP in huge chunks, so each update is filled with enough awesome game changing stuff looking past one or two updates might be to much.

The two examples you described in my opinion are minor level updates to the game. The discovery mechanic already sort of exists with asteroids, and i feel planets wouldn't be much harder to implement. Lots of details need to be worked out, but adding such a thing to the game is more of a when rather than a how. (asteroids i feel were a pain to deal with due to the length of the patch cycle.)

Extended EVA seems more like a distant update. It wouldn't take more than an update to implement all the features. (Kerbal Attachment system already showcases exactly what this sort of stuff should be)

The big elephants in the room still need to be dealt with before anything minor gets worked on. Such as the Aerodynamic model (everyone is whining about this one)

[xcorps]

What's not clear is what "The major game play systems" are. To the best of my knowledge, a list of these systems has never been made explicit. It could be that there will be no more "major game play systems" after 0.24, or there could be a dozen more systems to implement.

They've never said, so there's obviously follow-up required.

Basically saying "it's done when there's nothing left to add" is meaningless tautology if you don't know what's left to add.

The post I resonded to said nobody knows what Scope Complete means. I posted Harvesters definition of Scope Complete, which is clear. You aren't asking for a complete definition of Scope Complete, because that has already been defined. You are asking "what are the features", which is not the same as "Nobody told us what scope complete is".

I read what you posted about scope complete in 2014 as "By the end of the year we will have all the features we intend to implement incorporated into the game and working, after which we will add content to these features."

Edited June 26, 2014 by xcorps

[LethalDose]

[redacted annoyed and offended counter post]

Just... "scope complete" doesn't mean anything useful if we don't know what the "scope" is.

Edited June 26, 2014 by LethalDose

[MR4Y]

Earlier this year, the devs announced the goal was to get the game "scope complete" (all major features implemented) by the end of 2014. We've been asking for a definition of what "scope complete" entails basically since that time. We haven't gotten yet, and I don't expect we will until the time it's actually scope complete.

There's no guarantee of that either, according to disclaimers the devs themselves put on their posts. In essence, we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the game development. For all we know(nothing), KSP might be a testing bed for another goat simulator.

The devs are fairly cautious about discussing what is planned and what isn't. A portion of the community treats such statements as unbreakable promises and are upset if changes are made to them. Some of the more obvious examples would be the addition of multiplayer after it was said that it likely wouldn't be in 1.0, and the removal of the planned resources mechanic when testing revealed the implementation was not fun.

And you know why that happens? Because SQUAD made it's community think like that. The whole multiplayer thing was an issue, not because of 'unbreakable statements'. It was because the whole thing was stated to 'not be mentioned, nor discussed' with an iron fist until someone made a mod that added a somewhat working multiplayer into KSP, then multiplayer magically turned into a possibility to be implemented. To cut to the chase, that leaves the impression that SQUAD has to have their work done for them before they implement stuff, which makes me think why the heck those updates take so long if the functionality is being done for them by someone else already. This is the issue.