Where's KSP going?

[Linear]

Not for many players. The actual exploration is what makes this game exciting. Its the whole point of the game.

Personally I think Squad are making a big mistake turning the game into something like a real space program with the same problems such as money.

Building ships, testing and learning how to travel to the planets and get back is what is fun.

Anyone playing this game under the restrictions of budgets and contracts and science points is going to miss a huge amount of the game in simply giving up after a while. They will miss out on some amazing gaming moments.

Don't give us restrictions. We have enough of those in real life ffs.

I bet not one of the people on this forum will ever go into space. I also bet each and every one of them would give their left leg to do so, me included.

The reason we all cannot get into space is due to the restrictions our current reality put on us. Why put the similar restrictions in a game?

It seems that Squad are limiting a players ability to explore. Which leads me to believe they are not concerned with enhancing exploration which will kill this game plain and simple.

You may not agree with me. Just wait and see. it will happen. And I will cry.

MJ

KSP was never intended to be a fully-sandbox game. Also, let's remember, no one is stopping you from playing sandbox. I don't really see what your point is.

Unfortunately for you, there are more people who enjoy limitations etc than do not. Otherwise there wouldn't have been extremely popular mods for it.

We are alpha testers, and as such have gotten used to and know the limitations of our ability within the game, and by now a lot of us find everything easy, we have to remember that even if something 'easy' is added, it's not really inteded to challenge us.

The challenge will come after/nearing scope completion - as mentioned before this is when all core features are implemented to a standard which makes the game releasble in Harvesters vision; after this we will see extra content being added and discussed in more detail.

[LethalDose]

I'm surprised to hear that. First because there is no orbital resonance in KSP (with planets being "on rails"), also because Squad has assured us that Eloo is in no way a Pluto analogue.

There is orbital resonance in KSP. According to the wiki, Tylo, Vall, and Laythe are in a 1:2:4 Laplace resonance. It's just a forced resonance.

And yes, Eeloo is supposed to be a moon for GP2... which, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't been mentioned by the devs in almost a year. So who know's what the plan there is.

The finance mechanic will be made with the lowest common denominator in mind and will offer little to no challenge. If you play career mode, it'll be the same old career mode.

Yeah, I worry about this as well, though you're statement is pretty definitive with the use of the phrase "will be made" leaving little room for doubt. I'm well past having enough faith in SQUAD to expect them to balance the finance systems to matter, but I have just enough left to still hope they will, as I haven't seen them say anything about where they're targeting balance...

Man, if only there were some well-established convention in video games where the devs gave the player's the ability to adjust the challenge of their experience... I feel like I've heard legends of such a mechanic, I can only hope it may go live... "Soon^tm"

[frizzank]

Um wow, you have been playing for a year and you still feel unsatisfied? It's not an MMO, its a single player sandbox game.

If I play a $60 game for a solid month I feel satisfied. I am ecstatic with the amount of gameplay that is included with the game already and its still not done yet.

When was the last time you spent $20 on anything and got a YEAR's worth of entertainment out of it?

[regex]

Yeah, I worry about this as well, though you're statement is pretty definitive with the use of the phrase "will be made" leaving little room for doubt.

Yeah, I made that mistake after telling so many people not to, not ashamed.

Man, if only there were some well-established convention in video games where the devs gave the player's the ability to adjust the challenge of their experience... I feel like I've heard legends of such a mechanic, I can only hope it may go live... "Soon^tm"

My rose-colored glasses have long since faded. It might be time to set KSP down for a year and come back to it when it's finished.

I think we're in a dev slump for long-term players right now. All these major systems being created and revamped while content languishes... Again, it makes a lot of sense from a development standpoint, but it's not exactly an exciting time for KSP.

[Linear]

Yeah, I made that mistake after telling so many people not to, not ashamed.

My rose-colored glasses have long since faded. It might be time to set KSP down for a year and come back to it when it's finished.

I think we're in a dev slump for long-term players right now. All these major systems being created and revamped while content languishes... Again, it makes a lot of sense from a development standpoint, but it's not exactly an exciting time for KSP.

I think this is the point which needs to be echoed, KSP needs this development time rather than a whole bunch of content creation.

[Monger]

Out of the many Early Access games I have played KSP is one of the slowest progressing, even for a small studio.

I guess Squad has two problems that other early access games usually don't have.

a) they have no professional experience in software development, let alone game development. Squad stems from a marketing company, after all.

there is no existing framework for games like KSP.

Even early access games usually only make small modifications to existing frameworks (like, rpg maker), and fill it with new content and game rules. The usual game today usually is no more than 20% development, and the rest of it concept and content creation. Which is usually a good thing, because this means artists that have a brilliant and visually stunning design idea for a game can still make it, even though they have little to no technical knowledge. You don't need a John Carmack today to create a beautiful game.

Even though Squad uses Unity as foundation, Unity 3D has no native understanding of a 3D world where e.g. there is no single point of origin, no native orientation, no ruleset that at least some other game has adopted before (e.g. the floor is down, the game world has fixed limits, the game world is divided into static and non-static objects etc.).

In addition to that, KSP tries to define a game logic that no one really has tried before. Somewhere in between unit editing like in Spore, a tycoon sim and a world builder game like Minecraft. There are very few space games (especially in the last 20 years), and even less space tycoon games or space simulations, and no game that really tries to combine these aspects.

It was always extremely unlikely that anyone could pull off a game like this. But Squad didn't care, and tried anyway. They are far from finished, and maybe they never will, but like all explorers someone had to do the first step. Inventing a new game genre is not an easy task.

The biggest upside here is: even if KSP fails for some unknown reason, anyone who tries to do something similar after that (even a "KSP 2") would need significantly less time, because there is already an example how to do it right and what pitfalls to avoid.

Most games that founded a genre were technically speaking not particularly good. But the games that followed them were. (e.g. Dune -> Command & Conquer, Wolfenstein 3D -> Doom).

[Tuareg]

into the ditch...

I guess Squad has two problems that other early access games usually don't have.

a) they have no professional experience in software development, let alone game development. Squad stems from a marketing company, after all.

there is no existing framework for games like KSP.

Even early access games usually only make small modifications to existing frameworks (like, rpg maker), and fill it with new content and game rules. The usual game today usually is no more than 20% development, and the rest of it concept and content creation. Which is usually a good thing, because this means artists that have a brilliant and visually stunning design idea for a game can still make it, even though they have little to no technical knowledge. You don't need a John Carmack today to create a beautiful game.

Even though Squad uses Unity as foundation, Unity 3D has no native understanding of a 3D world where e.g. there is no single point of origin, no native orientation, no ruleset that at least some other game has adopted before (e.g. the floor is down, the game world has fixed limits, the game world is divided into static and non-static objects etc.).

In addition to that, KSP tries to define a game logic that no one really has tried before. Somewhere in between unit editing like in Spore, a tycoon sim and a world builder game like Minecraft. There are very few space games (especially in the last 20 years), and even less space tycoon games or space simulations, and no game that really tries to combine these aspects.

It was always extremely unlikely that anyone could pull off a game like this. But Squad didn't care, and tried anyway. They are far from finished, and maybe they never will, but like all explorers someone had to do the first step. Inventing a new game genre is not an easy task.

The biggest upside here is: even if KSP fails for some unknown reason, anyone who tries to do something similar after that (even a "KSP 2") would need significantly less time, because there is already an example how to do it right and what pitfalls to avoid.

Most games that founded a genre were technically speaking not particularly good. But the games that followed them were. (e.g. Dune -> Command & Conquer, Wolfenstein 3D -> Doom).

quite agree with this except the last part. all the first ones were always the best games and all the copies are crap. i play dune II since release (yes, i still play it, dune wasnt an RTS, dune II was the first) just like xcom ud / tfd and x-wing/tie fighter... 22 years and nobody can beat these. KSP is quite poor to open a new genre compared to these. its a great idea, poor implementation. sadly every gamedev thinks that fancy graphics and funny crap can take up with the quality gameplay. well this is all about business as these 2 things sell...

[Eric S]

Anyone playing this game under the restrictions of budgets and contracts and science points is going to miss a huge amount of the game in simply giving up after a while. They will miss out on some amazing gaming moments.

Or we can flip this argument on it's head and say that people that ignore career mode will quit sooner because they're not sufficiently challenged.

Personally, I don't think either of these points of view are that accurate. I was on a KSP hiatus before career mode came out because I had done so many different things that anything I could do in game was a minor variation of something I had already done. Grand tour landing Jeb on every officially landable celestial body including Eve (excluding the Sun and Jool), then returning him to Kerbin? Check. RT/RT2 communications constellations around every celestial body with the entire network, including initial Kerbin satellites, placed with unmanned craft? Check.

I came back precisely because career mode has restrictions that the sandbox doesn't, which added at least some initial challenge.

There are players for whom the restrictions of career mode is an impediment for having fun, and players for whom those same restrictions enhances their fun. Neither type of player is playing the game wrong, and they'll probably continue playing for as long as their play style continues to be fun.

Don't give us restrictions. We have enough of those in real life ffs.

Sandbox mode is there if that's what you want. That's fine for your playstyle, it's not particularly interesting to me, however.

It seems that Squad are limiting a players ability to explore. Which leads me to believe they are not concerned with enhancing exploration which will kill this game plain and simple.

So what could they do to enhance exploration? Add more planets? That's content, and they've said that they have no intention on trying to finish up the content until the mechanics of the game are all in place. What content we have is there mostly to test the mechanics. They're not opposed to adding new exploration mechanics, the last update was all about exploring space via capturing an asteroid, did very little to change career mode, and added no new restrictions that I can remember.

[Kerbonautical]

Um wow, you have been playing for a year and you still feel unsatisfied? It's not an MMO, its a single player sandbox game.

If I play a $60 game for a solid month I feel satisfied. I am ecstatic with the amount of gameplay that is included with the game already and its still not done yet.

When was the last time you spent $20 on anything and got a YEAR's worth of entertainment out of it?

I never said that, I said the complete opposite in fact. I thought it was pretty clear that I've really enjoyed my time so far and that I'm a passionate fan. That however doesn't mean that should have no opinion of future directions. Realistically when early-access first started showing up in the market we were sold it under the impression we would be helping to craft the direction of the game with our feedback anyway, however this premise has started to fade from almost all early access projects, so I won't try and pretend that Squad are the only ones who have overridden the community's wishes in the past. Of course they are the devs and have the right to do so.

And I only paid 7.99 back then, so it's an even better deal. Still paid 20 for a copy for my friend though. Both of us have clocked enough play time to warrant the prices.

[MR4Y]

KSP is going one direction at the moment, and that direction is downhill.

[MoeMelek]

I think the feeling of a staling KSP development has to do with the fact that Squad has been working hard to provide a good base for the content to rest on. Actually I think Harvester has stated this. A part system that can be used to create any imaginable part, and a contract system that can be used to create any contract, and a programmable GUI. Content will come later. Sounds like a good approach.

However...

- I really feel that developent is going very slow, and the lack of stock content is frustrating.

- I also feel that some kind of roadmap for the future of KSP should be presented.

- I also feel that it would be a bad mistake by Squad to start focusing on multiplayer at this stage when people are starved for content.

- Waiting months to get annoying bugs/crashes fixed is not ok.

After 0.24 I would like to see a few smaller updates that add content, fixes bugs, and improves on some of the neglected stuff like IVA pits. It's kind of weird to see the attention to detail in the VAB where the little Kerbal engineers run around and do stuff, and yet in the IVA pits we don't even have altitude, thrust or a clinometer.

Don't take this wrong, I really love KSP and Squad but I think Squad should add some content to keep people interested and freshen up some other aspects of the game.

[r4pt0r]

KSP is going one direction at the moment, and that direction is downhill.

literaly every post of yours i see is negative. ksp is a fun game, and .24 will only improve on that.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah as mentioned, if you like sandbox, play sandbox. I get why it feels like they're putting restrictions on things (and they are!) but for me and most other players they are good restrictions. Gravity is a restriction. Limited fuel is a restriction. Its challenging one's self to develop innovative designs to overcome those restrictions that makes the game fun. Having a tech tree means you start with only a very small kit of parts, and are forced to think creatively about how to do big things with just those. Doing that successfully unlocks new parts, which enables even bigger things to happen. That constraint is part of the fun. Not to mention, having to carefully plan and conduct experiments and retrieving them is way, way more fun to me than going to an arbitrary spot on a rock and putting a flag in it. The same will be true with contracts and money. Money is a very real constraint in the real world, and considering it will challenge builders to make not just cool looking doohickeys, but really efficient craft. Again, maybe cool looking dohickies are your thing and totally, have a ball in sandbox! But for many of us the idea of challenging ourselves to meet real-world constraints is a big part of the excitement and satisfaction.

[Monger]

I think the feeling of a staling KSP development has to do with the fact that Squad has been working hard to provide a good base for the content to rest on. Actually I think Harvester has stated this.

Yes, as I said: most games already have this base. There are a lot of available frameworks for all kind of games - but unfortunately not for KSP. So Harvester has to develop all of this.

[Haze-Zero]

spaaaaaace!

I was wondering when someone would make this joke and for a moment there, I thought I would have to be the one to do it. Thank you.

[Justin Kerbice]

[...]

- I really feel that developent is going very slow, and the lack of stock content is frustrating.

- I also feel that it would be a bad mistake by Squad to start focusing on multiplayer at this stage when people are starved for content.

- Waiting months to get annoying bugs/crashes fixed is not ok.

[...]

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...

For the 3rd: I totally agree . But the first two put this one in a far far away galaxy.

[vexx32]

The lack of content is, I think, because Squad are mainly working on getting the underlying features finished and working as they ought to be. Once that's done, adding content is (comparatively) a piece of cake, really. Obviously the artists get worked harder then, but from a coding/bugs/overall development time perspective, it's a lot quicker once the underlying 'framework' are in place and working well.

[MoeMelek]

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...

For the 3rd: I totally agree . But the first two put this one in a far far away galaxy.

Ha ha, ok I get your point. Well, I do use a bunch of mods. I'm however a bit reluctant to use too many mods, as you know they might break in the next update and may not get fixed. Mods are a bit of a gamble in that respect. And when it comes to content like planets and such, I think it's more fun If the whole user base shares the same content.

I agree that mods are great for adding content, but some stuff really should be stock.

[Darkstar616]

Ha ha, ok I get your point. Well, I do use a bunch of mods. I'm however a bit reluctant to use too many mods, as you know they might break in the next update and may not get fixed. Mods are a bit of a gamble in that respect. And when it comes to content like planets and such, I think it's more fun If the whole user base shares the same content.

I agree that mods are great for adding content, but some stuff really should be stock.

I've always felt that official content felt so much better than mods, games like Skyrim with practically zero content have really great mods but you can really tell the difference between a mod and a dlc or an update. I feel the same way towards every other game with mod capability, most part mods look and feel out of place when combined with other stock parts and it really boils down to playing with a bjillion mods that make the core game barely recognisable or only using a few that make the core game seem better.

I can't play KSP without mods simply because the base game is lacking content and even then, it's just a skeleton wearing fancy clothes. 64bit compatibility will definitely make it more playable for me since I can't use visual mods and part packs at the same time without it crashing. Still, I'm really bored of it at the moment and I can't say that putting challenge-limits in will make it any more enjoyable.

I do believe it's the right direction though, overloading the game with stock parts that only serve the purpose of "WHOOSH" will just make it even worse. I expect the update to give me a couple of hours of messing around before I inevitably go back to what I was doing since it just adds a couple of bones to the nearly finished skeleton.

[Sandworm]

Because KSP has never been about the sandbox. It is a sandbox game, and you can create a sandbox save, but the sandbox has always been a secondary concern to the "tycoon"-style of play that they have been going for. Their web-page advertising says it all.

Lol. I have heard nothing from squad about tycoon-style play. Remember that the first iteration of "contracts" didn't involve any money or rewards. Tycoon-style play would require investment mechanics, expansion to acquire resources and most importantly, a failure state. Each of those would take months to develop, putting any notion of tycoon-ing at least a couple years away.

[regex]

Lol. I have heard nothing from squad about tycoon-style play. Remember that the first iteration of "contracts" didn't involve any money or rewards.

LOL, you're so cute.

https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/about.php

A Tycoon-Style Career Mode.

You might also want to read the last few dev notes about why 0.24 is so far behind; contracts by themselves are boring, you need a budget to go with them.

[Sandworm]

LOL, you're so cute.

https://www.kerbalspaceprogram.com/about.php

That is an advertisement. Things you say in ads mean little to nothing (the legal term is "puffing"). That particular ad is also out of date, not even mentioning multiplayer.

[regex]

That is an advertisement. Things you say in ads mean little to nothing (the legal term is "puffing"). That particular ad is also out of date, not even mentioning multiplayer.

So what? It's pretty clear that the intention all along has been to have a 'Tycoon-Style Career Mode" and it's also pretty clear that's where KSP is heading right now.

[Javster]

The lack of content is, I think, because Squad are mainly working on getting the underlying features finished and working as they ought to be. Once that's done, adding content is (comparatively) a piece of cake, really. Obviously the artists get worked harder then, but from a coding/bugs/overall development time perspective, it's a lot quicker once the underlying 'framework' are in place and working well.

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

[Eric S]

Lol. I have heard nothing from squad about tycoon-style play. Remember that the first iteration of "contracts" didn't involve any money or rewards.

As regex said, this is totally wrong. The first iteration of contracts did have money rewards, but without a budget, the money rewards felt pointless. The devs had planned on making the budget part of 0.25, but moved it up because otherwise it felt like the money rewards from contracts were pointless.

And yes, for as long as this game has been known publicly, BARIS (Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space) has been quoted as one of the inspirations, and that game doesn't involve designing or manually flying craft at all. Also, parts have had prices for as long as I can remember, and prices are pointless in the sandbox. Maxmap commented multiple times when career mode first came out on the fact that Harvester razzed him over the fact that when career mode was finished, Maxmap wouldn't be able to afford to launch the monstrosities that all of his missions turned into at that time.

I'll admit that most of the evidence of this was easy to overlook if you weren't looking for it, but this is obviously where KSP was headed for a very long time.

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

Having a mostly complete framework is what marks the boundary between alpha and beta in squad's eyes, though the definition of complete in this case doesn't equate out to final. The game was playable and enjoyable well before career mode was enabled, and they still don't have a complete framework, though 0.24 brings them very close in my opinion.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Eric S