Publicly Viewable Development Wishlist/Roadmap

[CaptRobau]

I think it'd be a hard thing to implement. When the devs were showing off experimental things like resources, clouds, gas giant 2 and those were for one reason or another shelved it just led to widespread disappointment, a massive negative circular discussion that cluttered up the forums and for a while made the community not as fun to be a part of. When they kept their cards a little closer to their chest all that has happened has been a circular discussion between the same dozen or two dozen posters over the issue, while the rest just got on their way and didn't care. It might however be possible to be a bit more transparent about what lies ahead, but it should be made perfectly clear that stuff can change and things can fall through and the community shouldn't be so unforgiving and realize that the roadmap is indeed not set in stone.

Personally I find it much more important that Squad has their internal roadmap sorted out, communicates when they fall behind (to give us an idea how they're doing on their invisible roadmap) and is transparent on the progress of already announced features, etc.

Edited July 17, 2014 by vexx32
Vulgarity.

[allmhuran]

The problem may well be that Squad don't actually have a well thought out roadmap.

During early days that's OK, a lot still needs to be done and everything can be in flux. But given the current, rather evolved state of the game, I don't think that can continue. Without a vision, or a plan, the jigsaw will never come together. We'll have a bunch of scattered pieces that never make a coherent whole, and the game will suffer as a result.

I guess what I'm saying is that one of my wishes before the next update is that Squad actually lay down the keyboards, grab a whole bunch of butcher paper, and come to some decisions about the overarching game design, the direction they intend to take it, and so on. Will features like science become integrated into the game, or will it remain as a simple dialog box button clicking "tutorial for new players" (as it was originally described)? Do we want a mechanic whereby satellites, space stations and bases have some gameplay function (and if so, what new mechanics would be required - eg, actions performed by unfocused vessels) or are the boundaries of the game reached once the player has created them?

In short, what *is* the gameplay of Kerbal Space Program if it is anything beyond the construction and launch of vessels?

Regarding resources - I've said it in other threads and I'll say it again here.

The backlash had little to do with the changing of the roadmap, or the cancellation of any particular announced feature. It happened because Squad explicitly said "we have no ideas as to how to provide the sort of functional gameplay people seem to want". Or in other words, "We have no roadmap." Continuing to not have one will not help!

Edited July 17, 2014 by allmhuran

[CaptRobau]

Source for "we have no ideas as to how to provide the sort of functional gameplay people seem to want" please.

Also, and maybe it's just because of the different POV, I felt that the outrage over the shelving of resources was twofold, with none of these main reasons being an unclear roadmap. The first was that the announcement of the shelving was made at or around the same time as the announcement of multiplayer. Some people thought the two were connected and felt that resources were more fun than MP. They were however not connected (as multiplayer was shown to be possible around 0.23 and resources were shelved around the time of 0.19 or 0.20 when they were last heard of). The second reason was that people had a problem with resources possibly not working as a system. Squad tried out a couple of implementations but felt it was boring, but fans couldn't believe that. Possibly because of the hype/idea of resources. Compared to those, the voices saying: 'you have no plan for KSP' were quite faint as I recall.

[tetryds]

I agree with stupid_chris, we have more to lose than earn with this.

It's not because it's an indie game that it has to be totally open for everyone to see what is going on.

SQUAD is a company that offers us a product (that is awesome), not our mates.

The community management and devblogs are great, and I like to know what is going on, a lot.

But aparently it gives the false impression that they should be more open.

And I cannot see anything further than that being beneficial.

They already tell us what they are working next, and which steps they are taking, we knew money would come since ages ago.

But it's not of our consent to know which bug are causing the delay of the release.

Also, the developent seem almost unpredictable, for the size of the game it's required that every update tastes like a finished game, then move on.

So, continue posting your ideas and help with the development that way, we already get what we need.

[allmhuran]

Source for "we have no ideas as to how to provide the sort of functional gameplay people seem to want" please.

This isn't the exact Squad comment I was thinking of, but it's what I was able to find with a quick search. The actual comment may even have been during a stream, it was a long long time ago.

This particular post by Harvester actually appears to say "oh yeah, don't worry, we have plenty of ideas". But it goes on to say that they're really just that... brainstormed ideas. At that point they hadn't really been thought through, hence the "we won't discuss them".

And, for the record, I agreed with Harvester's reasoning reagarding resources at the time (can't find that particular post), have cited it since (on several occasions) and I still agree with it now. I believe it was an idea that hadn't really been though through in terms of the resultant fun factor. And that's what still at least appears (to us, the players) to be the case in general.

I don't think I can put it any more succinctly than I did in that last post:

In short, what *is* the gameplay of Kerbal Space Program if it is anything beyond the construction and launch of vessels?

And... it doesn't have to be anything! Squad might say "that's it, that's the gameplay of KSP".

Edited July 17, 2014 by allmhuran

[Justin Kerbice]

Regarding how things are going along each update transition time, I disagree wit the OP and go farer than that by dreaming Squad wouldn't make too much announcements and progress reports (after all, they're indie, they do what they want, they "don't have" to care about people, even it's in their interest to don't follow that tricky path ).

Just surprise everyone by releasing new updates one day when no one expect it without notice days/weeks before.

After use the spare time to add documentations, like how to update a plug-in to make it work to the new release, instead of the "google style" (no doc, kind of "you want do a mod ? ok but you'll be alone without any little help from us") more or less they are used to. There is too much user communication, but too few modder communication .

[allmhuran]

One thing I should probably make explicit:

The second reason was that people had a problem with resources possibly not working as a system. [...] the voices saying: 'you have no plan for KSP' were quite faint as I recall.

In my mind, those are essentially equivalent.

[Monger]

Not really. There's a big difference between the word "resources" in a list and a diagram showing exactly how resources will work within the game.

Even so, as Squad has said back then: resources turned out as a bad idea during playtesting, and therefore were not only postponed, but more or less trashed altogether. From there on they decided that they don't want a game where harvesting resources is a priority, but the mission itself should be rewarded - therefore the science and mission system.

Development is not a straight line. You may have some kind of vision, but it usually is blurry. Features that sound great might turn out great or utterly awful. Demanding a roadmap from Squad is impossible, because there probably is none. There are only concepts and strategies, but one of the worst things you can do is to define a product now, exactly deliver it in two years like promised, and it turns out that no one likes the original plan anymore.

You have to think step by step, and this is exactly what SQUAD is doing. They are telling for each increment what their plan is, and afterward check if they are still on course. They are telling exactly what they know, but nothing more.

[Dunbaratu]

It would be nice for people writing mods to know ahead of time if they're working on something that the stock game will:

- eventually have in a year or so, or

- eventually have, but not for a long time yet, or

- never have.

Because if the thing your mod does becomes a stock thing, you have to either throw away your mod, or at least redesign it from the bottom up anyway because the API has been completely redone in that area.

From the point of view of the mod writer, not knowing SQUADs future plans means having no idea whether or you should design your mod as a temporary stopgap or design it as a major longterm project with a deep underpinning and complex code engine under it, or just not bother with it at all.

SQUAD changing their mind on a thing they previous said they'd never do can mean a mod writer out there wasted a lot of personal time and effort.

[Monger]

SQUAD changing their mind on a thing they previous said they'd never do can mean a mod writer out there wasted a lot of personal time and effort.

Well, this might sound cruel, but creating a non-commercial mod for a game that is still Alpha entitles you to no support or service in any kind. SQUAD does it anway, because they are nice people. But if not changing a specific feature endangers the quality and progress of the game, which might result in less sales... well, what would you do?

[tetryds]

I am pretty sure that modding is not a waste even if what's in the mod gets added one week after it's release.

Just note how DMP is still being developed even knowing that official KSP MP will come.

That does not justify.

We have heard about scope completion for this 0.24 update, there is nothing else that game changing other than multiplayer to stop any modder from doing anything.

Also, having more parts don't make mods that adds parts useless.

Having the development like this, and without release dates have pros and cons:

Pros:

We get the releases right after they are set as releases, and don't have to wait much longer.

We don't know what to expect and let them impress us.

They don't have hard deadlines to follow thus droping the quality.

Anything can be changed for fun.

Cons:

People think that this is a non-professional approach, but still want them to show more of what they are doing (?).

Possible delays on planned release dates even when they are not explicit.

The more you openly tell what is being done, the bigger impact when the feature is changed/droped.

Also, we always knew we would have missions.

We always knew we would have more planets.

We always knew some day multiplayer will come.

But if any of that was changed it would be okay, the way it's being done.

From a business perspective, the development is already too open, IMO.

You never get "we fixed bug X today" from most games development (if any).

Edit: you won't break a promisse if you don't make it.

We were not promissed anything when we bougt the game other than what was on it at the state it was.

Edited July 17, 2014 by tetryds

[Monger]

It would be nice for people writing mods to know ahead of time if they're working on something that the stock game will:

- eventually have in a year or so, or

- eventually have, but not for a long time yet, or

- never have.

Btw. we already have that:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features

[r4pt0r]

Btw. we already have that:

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features

from that link:

This list is not an official road-map for KSP. It is maintained by the community, and has no direct relation to what may or may not be included in the final product.

we are asking for a squad approved version of that. it would take 5 minutes in word if they already have a semi cognizant plan

[KN_Namida]

Don't know if this is a good example but... Let's say you got an illness of some sort. You don't notice it, there are no symptoms, and you go to the doctor as you do once or twice a year, as usual. He finds out about the illness.

So, what would a good doctor do? Tell the patient nothing, or explain them about the illness, even if it is nothing serious?

I love Squad. I love the game they're making. Just like a father would love its child. But when that child comes home from school with an F, what do you do? You don't stop loving your child, that'd be ridiculous. But you'd be disappointed.

I just want to know if some features that I thought were going to be implemented when I bought the game over one year ago are still planned to. See, before buying KSP I documented myself. I came to know youtubers as HOCgaming, Scott Manley, EnterElysium and more. I found out about KSP Wiki, and browsed it all, all the planets and moons, all the parts and easter eggs. I loved it, so I bought the game as soon as it came onto Steam, a few weeks later.

On the wiki, I also saw the page regarding planned features: that's mostly what drove me to buy this game. More planets, following Novasilisko's ideas, more parts, weather effects, better aerodynamics, scenary on Kerbin such as small cities and small villages to fly over, life support for manned missions, more EVA activities such as ground sampling, etc.

Alright then... are they all going to be implemented before the final release of the game? I want to know it. I want to know if I'll eventually get what I paid for. I won't stop playing KSP if some of that stuff doesn't make it into KSP, I'll keep playing it. I'll just be a bit disappointed.

That's why I demand an official list of general things that Squad is willing to work on. I need answers. And I haven't received anything definitive yet.

[Dunbaratu]

I am pretty sure that modding is not a waste even if what's in the mod gets added one week after it's release.

Just note how DMP is still being developed even knowing that official KSP MP will come.

That does not justify.

When "what's in the mod" gets added to stock, it's not just a matter of the mod becoming redundant, it becomes non-working because the way it interacted with the main game is now wrong and therefore the entire design from the ground up needs a re-write, and it's effectively the same thing as starting over writing it again. The fact that some people are willing to do that work doesn't change the fact that it would have been less effort to wait and not start writing code until after the change was out.

[allmhuran]

It's easy, and dangerous, to take the OP's idea too far here.

Comments about "getting what you paid for" don't apply for many good reasons already covered in other recent threads.

Asking for access to the revision control logs turns the thread towards a pretty extremist position.

When Steven Mading (who probably doesn't want to blow his own horn and won't say he actually *is* a modder, and can therefore speak with some authority on the issue of time wasting - so I'll do it for him ) talks about giving modders some ideas of where there work would be most efficiently applied, it doesn't require that level of information.

And when I claim that whether or not a roadmap even exists is not something players can currently know, I don't mean Squad should publish their whole design document to remedy that situation.

I hope we can keep to the more modest and reasonable suggestion raised by the OP rather than derailing it with fundamentalisms.

[tetryds]

So, KN_Namida, what you want is not "planned features" but "considered features.

And see how if you don't see some of them would make you disapointed?

Now if they openly considered something else you would expect it, and if it ends up not being in the game then you would get disapointed.

[KN_Namida]

Shouldn't we, as a community of a game still in alpha stage, be partially involved in the development process of said game?

[Guest]

Demanding a roadmap from Squad is impossible, because there probably is none.

That's what I'm afraid of.

There are only concepts and strategies, but one of the worst things you can do is to define a product now, exactly deliver it in two years like promised, and it turns out that no one likes the original plan anymore.

Definitely. Even in my line of work you go back and renegotiate if you need to, like was done with resources. But we always have the list of concepts and strategies, and the guiding points and framework that we agreed to in the original contract. That may be subject to change but without it we can't build a finished product because we have no idea what the finished product should be; it gives us a list of milestones and goals to shoot for the short- and long-term.

You have to think step by step, and this is exactly what SQUAD is doing. They are telling for each increment what their plan is, and afterward check if they are still on course. They are telling exactly what they know, but nothing more.

That is a terrible way to develop. How do they know what the course is? How do they lay down the features and framework to support future features? Refactoring is useful but if you're constantly doing it to fix something in the previous update to support something you had no idea was coming in the next update is just ... wasteful.

Having a roadmap of what you want to achieve provides guidance for both the short- and long-term, gives you an idea of where to go next when you have to renegotiate or when something is not feasible, and provides an idea of what to prepare for next so that systems can be written to work together. If SQUAD doesn't have one, even just a list of concepts and ideas they want to achieve that can be put into a list of words, then they're just as bad at this as a lot of us suspect and this game will continue to be less-than-amazing at every turn.

[allmhuran]

That is a terrible way to develop. How do they know what the course is? How do they lay down the features and framework to support future features? Refactoring is useful but if you're constantly doing it to fix something in the previous update to support something you had no idea was coming in the next update is just ... wasteful.

I wonder if part of the problem might be that waaaaay back when KSP started, this was actually the right way to develop.

Harv has said that when the game was first conceived it was a gamble for the company (Squad). As such, any release could have been the last... Squad might have pulled the plug at any time. Under those conditions, creating a multi-year roadmap containing a list of all of the eventual features and how they would all coordinate together into a game that could rival AAA titles would have been a complete waste of time. The correct mentality under those conditions was "well, let's just throw in this extra little feature for the next release".

I'm pretty confident those circumstances are long gone, but perhaps the mentality is harder to shake.

[edvardm]

Just a thought, and might have been discussed already. There's this mod statistics mod, which is usable for mod authors, but I suppose if the data

was made public or at least accessible by Squad, it'd tell them a lot.

I mean, if practically everybody's using some mod, they might consider making something similar for base game. That said, given how good work they've done

with KSP, I'd rather have them not listening too closely what people wish. Now it's still consistent and a great product as-is, and those who want to have something different can use all those excellent mods for it (esp. with coming 64-bit version) -- I mean, I have 20+ mods that I use at the moment, but for some reason I'm happy that they are all mods, not part of the game. With the exception of TriggerAu's excellent alarm clock, without which I wouldn't be able to have those 10-20 simultanous flights going on at the same time.

[KN_Namida]

I'm pretty confident those circumstances are long gone, but perhaps the mentality is harder to shake.

This is actually a pretty good explanation for what's going on.

But come on Squad, cheer up. You fared better than you thought at first right? Many many people bought your game, don't be so afraid of the future anymore. Win your fears and reveal us your secrets... ok that sounded a bit spooky.

*cough*

I mean, the risk of Squad not being able to complete the game is long gone. They now have all the resources necessary to finish it the way they want (I hope). I'd just like to know if, generally speaking, Squad envisions the final product just like I do. Or not. I want to know what their general goals are for this game. Nothing specific. Just a little something that tells me that some areas of the game which, in my opinion, need revisiting will get revisited, or that they won't because Squad thinks they're fine as they are.

[CaptRobau]

This isn't the exact Squad comment I was thinking of, but it's what I was able to find with a quick search. The actual comment may even have been during a stream, it was a long long time ago.

This particular post by Harvester actually appears to say "oh yeah, don't worry, we have plenty of ideas". But it goes on to say that they're really just that... brainstormed ideas. At that point they hadn't really been thought through, hence the "we won't discuss them".

And, for the record, I agreed with Harvester's reasoning reagarding resources at the time (can't find that particular post), have cited it since (on several occasions) and I still agree with it now. I believe it was an idea that hadn't really been though through in terms of the resultant fun factor. And that's what still at least appears (to us, the players) to be the case in general.

I don't think I can put it any more succinctly than I did in that last post:

In short, what *is* the gameplay of Kerbal Space Program if it is anything beyond the construction and launch of vessels?

And... it doesn't have to be anything! Squad might say "that's it, that's the gameplay of KSP".

I think you're reading too much between the lines in that post. All I'm reading is someone who is very careful not to reveal a potential Resourcegate. Career mode has been the main focus of Squad ever since 0.21 (released a year ago) and they probably thought about it during 0.20s development. Quite soon after that I remember the basic elements of career mode Tech Tree, Science, Contracts, Reputation and Budgets already being quite firm. Each update since then has been added one by one. The only exceptions to the focus on career mode have been the ARM update and multiplayer, the first being added because it was too good an opportunity (NASA collab) and the second being added because a smart modder came with a way to handle MP. Lately we've begun hearing terms like sandbox-complete and scope-complete. Those terms imply a long-term plan. They might not have had much of a plan around the time Resource was canned (0.19 aka early 2013) but I feel like they do now.

[Monger]

That is a terrible way to develop. How do they know what the course is? How do they lay down the features and framework to support future features? Refactoring is useful but if you're constantly doing it to fix something in the previous update to support something you had no idea was coming in the next update is just ... wasteful.

We are getting deep into software development process philosophy here. This is probably not the place and time to discuss that, but in a nutshell: changing development goals are a matter of fact, and usually a necessary one. Like in this case: support for 64Bit was on no road map, until the demand went so high that SQUAD had to react.

Refactoring is not bad, but code that is hard to refactor is.

One of the biggest misunderstandings in software development is that the main work is to write code. The main work goes into researching what the product might look like - unless you just reinvent the wheel. A product that is well defined before implementation and turns out exactly like that is either trivial or not very elaborate. The only way to understand a game is to play it, and for that you need to implement it. SQUAD has made a grave design decision in that each feature has to be complete (which is okay) and stable (which is a little insane) with every single increment, which severely limits their chances to progress via rapid prototyping.

Changing directions is not a bad thing, as long as the product benefits from it, and refactoring is cheap.

[Guest]

Like in this case: support for 64Bit was on no road map, until the demand went so high that SQUAD had to react.

As I understand it, the framework updated. It also may not be entirely stable.

The main work goes into researching what the product might look like - unless you just reinvent the wheel.

The question is, does SQUAD have an idea what the product might look like? Do they have a list of features they'd like to try to implement? Without that, a roadmap, they're just fumbling around with no direction.

A product that is well defined before implementation and turns out exactly like that is either trivial or not very elaborate.

Correct, but if you don't have a list of features and goals to strive for you're not going to be able to create a product in the first place because you have no idea what you want at the end. Paths along the roadmap may change (or destinations omitted or added) but that doesn't devalue the roadmap.

Changing directions is not a bad thing, as long as the product benefits from it

I don't believe anyone has said anything to the contrary in this thread.