Where's KSP going?

[Raven.]

Should they have made sure the framework was working before releasing an alpha?

No, an alpha means that the product is incomplete. There's absolutely no implication that a finished framework is in place when we're talking about an alpha. Actually, to take things a little bit further, there is no implication or guarantee that anything at all will be complete when we're talking alpha.

My observation on these forums has been that a lot of people are misunderstanding what an alpha is. Alpha means that the product is incomplete, and simply that. There is no guarantee that anything will actually work. An alpha is a work in progress. A Beta, is a complete product that is being tested and ran through QA. Beta's are released to the public in order to help track down bugs, Alpha's are released to the public in order to get a fan base in to help not only find bugs, but to provide continual feedback as the product is being developed.

[Monger]

Should they have made sure the framework was working before releasing an alpha?

a) Squad never called any version an Alpha, so they never released one.

The Alpha/Beta/RTM/Gold milestones only make sense for specific distribution and development models.

But ignoriing semantics here: well, this is one of the main questions of all early access games. Should customers get involved in a product that might never get finished?

Without early access, KSP would probably never have seen the light of day. Squad would have run out of money long before that. Then again, you pay upfront for a product which may take several years to finish, and even that isn't guaranteed.

This is a choice every customer has to decide for himself.

[Everten P.]

I've racked up 1200 hours no joke check my steam @plaza2028

[JayCheetah]

For the two first points: is it kind of joke ? Seriously, I really don't understand why people are so reluctant to add mod to their game (it's not like a lifetime contract with the devil !), it's provide instantly more content and more fun...

Mods are great and most likely if the game couldn't be modded, most of us would have stopped playing KSP a long time ago, well at least I would have.

Problem though is that mods need to be updated whenever the core game gets an update and since mods are made by the community, there is no one obligated to keep mods up to date.

I always loved the Remote Tech mod and in my opinion, the stock game needs a mechanic like this, rather then a multiplayer mode ( I am just not a big fan of multiplayer ) Sadly Remote Tech needs some serious updating.

Im glad that there is a sandbox mode, because the current career mode is just very bland and tedious. Also the stock science parts make your ships look like crap.

[vexx32]

Should they have made sure the framework was working before releasing an alpha?

"Alpha" is "not-feature-complete", and traditionally focuses on getting features completed before piling on content and doing heavy debugging and optimisation. So, really, that question doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not sure what you're getting at.

[Rainbowtrout]

Think of KSP like a rocket. I'm no expert at real life construction, but don't you have to build the internal systems first, then throw on the pretty covers and paint? I believe that without mods, the game would be mostly defunct, and out of ideas. And, the devs DO want to add this stuff.

[Kinglet]

Think of KSP like a rocket. I'm no expert at real life construction, but don't you have to build the internal systems first, then throw on the pretty covers and paint? I believe that without mods, the game would be mostly defunct, and out of ideas. And, the devs DO want to add this stuff.

And all that stuff will come next year or even later. Yay. By the way, that is a community page, not a official page. It says fairings are partially implemented.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Kinglet

[vexx32]

They are; engines have functional fairings. Yes, it's a community page, but it's the closest we've got to a solid, official, "Planned Features" document.

[Schmonzo]

As of right now the coming features will evolve it into KSP with tycoon elements, but outside of money and challenges, what new stuff will there be?

I have been with ksp since it's first alpha (when paying for the game was optional) and it always was the plan to have a spaceprogram tycoon. To me it is the feature I have been wanting the most and it certainly gives the sandbox a purpose, so I don't see why anyone would not like it. I actually don't like where the game is going these days either, but that is because they have been going away from the path the originally promised to walk on. Specificly make rovers a real thing that you can unpack from your rockets cargo holds, not something you have to attach to the top of it in a weird manner, also bases, resources, aerodynamics and a proper science system.

But instead we get a multiplayer and footballs...

oh well, btw planets were planned to be added after the discovery feature is implemented to not spoil the new planets for the community, which I think is a very good idea, I'd rather have some new stuff to explore when the game is finished then being done with it by the time it is done...

And last but not least: I agree with the OP on the slow development part, squad is by far the slowest developing indie dev team I know; especially considering the size of their team and the revenue ksp has made so far...

Edited July 5, 2014 by Schmonzo

[MR4Y]

Think of KSP like a rocket. I'm no expert at real life construction, but don't you have to build the internal systems first, then throw on the pretty covers and paint? I believe that without mods, the game would be mostly defunct, and out of ideas. And, the devs DO want to add this stuff.

Once again, comparisions of software with physical matter or objects should be avoided. Assuming people have the same intellectual capacities, making software is easier than developing a physical object that has to have it's use determined, has to confirm with the laws of physics as we know them, has to be designed taking into consideration it's use and, most important of all, has to be designed for manufacturability.

Software doesn't cope with the perversity of physical matter, which limits their issues to two things: software limitations and human limitations, one depending on the other, since the software was written by humans.

Since SQUAD is no experienced in making games or other business-savy and marketing-savy decisions ( judging by certain administrative decisions taken by the team and how certain aspects of the game place, like forums, are admnistraded.), it's a mere factor of human limitation copedwith software limitation that can't be overturned because of the first limitation, due to lack of experience.

Eventually, rockets get finished and fulfill their purpose, which is something that can't be said about KSP AT THE PRESENT MOMENT.

[Superfluous J]

But instead we get a multiplayer and footballs...

Unless I'm mistaken, we don't have multiplayer. And I doubt the footballs took THAT much dev time.

[technicalfool]

Assuming people have the same intellectual capacities, making software is easier than developing a physical object that has to have it's use determined...

Read up on Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology v4. You may be surprised.

It's how Serious Software gets built. Not a line of code touched until the whole system has been documented and described via flowcharts, DFDs, ERDs.. well, you probably get the picture.

Frankly I'm glad Squad have gone for more of a RAD approach, otherwise they'd probably still be in the Feasibility Analysis or Requirements Analysis stages.

This doesn't make it any easier, mind. It just produces results more quickly.

As for whether KSP is "fulfilling its purpose", I dunno.. it's a toy. Its purpose is to provide joy. Do you not have fun playing it?

[MR4Y]

Read up on Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology v4. You may be surprised.

It's how Serious Software gets built. Not a line of code touched until the whole system has been documented and described via flowcharts, DFDs, ERDs.. well, you probably get the picture.

Frankly I'm glad Squad have gone for more of a RAD approach, otherwise they'd probably still be in the Feasibility Analysis or Requirements Analysis stages.

This doesn't make it any easier, mind. It just produces results more quickly.

As for whether KSP is "fulfilling its purpose", I dunno.. it's a toy. Its purpose is to provide joy. Do you not have fun playing it?

"In software, we're making designs out of idealized matemathical components that have definitions. In every other field, people are trying to build physical things out of physical matter, and they have to cope with the perversity of matter, which doesn't have a definition. There are theories that try to model what it would do. And sometimes your theory is right, sometimes you're theory is wrong. When your theory is wrong, tough on you; you're not allowed to say:

'There's a bug in this plastic!'. 'There's a bug in this steel!'

No. It is what it is, and if that isn't what you wanted, tough on you. And that makes it hard. These annoying problems you couldn't had foreseen just plague you. And it's hard to make something really work right.

In software by comparison, because we're only dealing with matemathics, the parts at least always do what they're supposed to do. We can build a castle that's supported on matemathically thin line and it will stay up. We couldn't that with physical substances. When I'm developing a program, if I put an 'if' statement inside of a 'while' statement, I don't have to worry that as this 'while' statement repeats, the if statement will shake and vibrate at a resonant frequency of that. I don't have to worry that it will vibrate even faster and induce radio frequency interference in other parts of the program and the values will be wrong. I don't have to worry about how much heat the 'if' statement will generate and wether that can escape through the 'while' statement, so that the 'if' statement won't burn out. I don't have to worry, about wether some kind of corrosive fluid from the environment might get in between the 'if' statement and the 'while' statement and eat away the contacts between them until maybe the 'if' statement breaks or the signals don't pass and the values are wrong, or the voltage drop gets higher and the 'if' statement doesn't function anymore...There's so many things I don't have to worry about!

And not only that. I don't have to worry about how, supposing the 'if' statement does break, burn out or corrode; I'm going to pull it out and put in a replacement 'if' statement. And I don't have to worry about, as I build a new copy of this program, I'm going to manage to insert the 'if' statement inside the 'while' statement, how I'll get access to it, what order do I have to put these parts together in. when designing physical products, they have to be design for manufacturability. You have to design the factory to make the product. and sometimes you have to design the product so as to simplify the factory! And then you have to build the factory, which is a very big investiment. Often.

But when I wanna make copies of my program, I don't have to desgin a factory...A new factory to copy this program. I can just type 'cp' or 'dd' or...There are these general purpose copying things that'll copy any file. Whatever program I've just written, I can copy it the same way. So, there's a tremendous amount of problems I don't have to worry about and very larger burdens of design that I don't have to do. And this makes designing software much easier then the fields of physical engineering. That easier for the SAME SIZE OF COMPLEXITY OF THE DESIGN. Same number of design elements. In a program and in a physical thing, it's gonna be much harder to get that physical thing to work. But, we can suppose that the intelligence range of people from both those fields is the same. So, what you do? You have people with the same intelligence, but you give them an easier kind of job. What are they gonna do? they're gonna push to the limit. They make the jobs bigger. And eventually, it get's to be hard. So that's what happens. the software systems that we can design are much more complex. Not saying harder, because they get to be equally hard, it's the limit of human intelligence that's limiting in both cases. But the size of design that takes to reach that level of hardness in software is much bigger than to reach the same level of hardness in a physical field, where there are all these problems to cope with. So we can make systems that are so much bigger that do so many more things. A physical system with a million different parts in it's design is a gigantic project. A program with a million parts in it's design is a few hundred thousand lines, that's nothing. A few people will write that in a few years." (Richard Stallman)

[technicalfool]

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where, once you have defined the manufacturing process, you hit "print" and make a million of your physical widget.

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where it is getting more and more easy for home users to be able to produce their own widgets, on a small scale, in the same manner via 3D printing.

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where the very microchips that the software runs on are fabbed a million at a time, tested, packaged and shipped with clockwork precision.

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where Autodesk Inventor exists. Where CNC machinery exists. Where mass production exists.

Software is hard, and computer games are amongst the hardest type of software there is. This is fact. I think you do software and systems designers everywhere a disservice by belittling their efforts because it isn't "physical".

And what Richard Stallman has to do with where KSP is going, I have frankly no idea. What I do know, is that it's anything but a copy-paste of someone else's work.

[John FX]

I understand what you feel.

Like you, I've been playing since 0.18. I had so mutch fun in the very first months, just climbing the learning curve of this game ( first orbit, first landing and so on). When I felt I was getting less and less intesting in the game I put a brake on it.

The sand-box games have the limits that YOU have after all, and I reached that limit after 6 months of intensive play.

6 months without playing.

And I came back with the .23.5

Amazing and exciting, I really love this game, it may be the unique one that gives me so mutch feel of freedom.

But I have learn all the ropes (well, maybe not all of them, but really all the essentials ones). I can go so fast now (unlocking all the tech tree in maybe 10 launches) that I get bored in a few weeks, sometimes a few days.

I really looking forward to the .24, and even more.

I lack objectives in this game (and I'm affraid contracts and budget will not be sufficient, i've played around a bit with Mission Controler, and I still can break the game in a few launches, even on hard mode.

Bah, never mind, I'll give another brake and come back, as I did in the past.

But, hey, if there was more things to do (were are the ressources, the other planets, scipted missions ?) I'll be playing moar, for sure, erh, I mean, more longer, and still stop eventually.

If you have a problem with the game being too easy try `Better Than Starting Manned` which is very very hard.

I`m on my second playthrough and it plays like the harsh mistress of the game KSP could be.

It`s a real achievement to set foot on Mun for the first time.

[MR4Y]

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where, once you have defined the manufacturing process, you hit "print" and make a million of your physical widget.

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where it is getting more and more easy for home users to be able to produce their own widgets, on a small scale, in the same manner via 3D printing.

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where the very microchips that the software runs on are fabbed a million at a time, tested, packaged and shipped with clockwork precision.

Quoting a bunch of Stallman is not going to work in a world where Autodesk Inventor exists. Where CNC machinery exists. Where mass production exists.

Software is hard, and computer games are amongst the hardest type of software there is. This is fact. I think you do software and systems designers everywhere a disservice by belittling their efforts because it isn't "physical".

And what Richard Stallman has to do with where KSP is going, I have frankly no idea. What I do know, is that it's anything but a copy-paste of someone else's work.

what Stallman has to do with this?

Games = Software. Therefore, the same rules apply, unless you're talking about some hypothetical model where either software it's written without using code or physical matter is manufactured without the process described in the quote.

[Bishamon]

Hi, I came back after a few months break from KSP and I had the same feeling as the OP when I saw that the new additions like Science and now Contracts were ok but did not really improve that much the career experience.

Does someone know why it takes so long to flesh out the game (problems in the team ?) ? There are already so many mods.

Are the devs still on the Tycoon path ? It would be really awesome to see something like that. Like having cities around Kerbin and opening airlines between them with the planes you built (or even something with rovers). Same for colonies on other planets.

Anyway, I am a bit afraid to play right now. I dont want KSP to be like Minecraft was for me. I played a lot during beta, stopped then played again after final release and felt so bored that I couldnt finish the adventure mode. I felt sad for that.

Maybe early access games dont suit my gaming style...