Bug tracker "gatekeepers"?

[regex]

A few days ago I put this in as a bug report:

http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/2965#change-11783

Today I received the following reply:

A known simplification of the game. Not a bug, all working as intended. KSP isn't a simulator so takes certain liberties.

Emphasis mine.

Geschosskopf is known on these forums (by me at least) as a vehement opponent of anything that smacks of realism in this game, even when it comes to what is an obvious inaccuracy in the math this game uses. Why does someone who is not a SQUAD employee have the special privileges to "gatekeep" bugs from the developers? Is it their place to decide how this game is developed (the part I bolded)? I would assume managers would help deal with trolls and duplicate tickets on a public bugtracker, but outright saying "this is how the game is" isn't really for a non-SQUAD employee to determine.

Edited September 8, 2014 by regex

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Agree, it is obviously a bias issue

[Sky_walker]

And so the personal feelings got in a way of objective judgement.

IMHO you should contact someone from SQUAD staff (like: an actual SQUAD employee).

[vexx32]

Keep in mind that on the Bug Tracker, there exist users who are a) privy to information you may not be, and may have raised the issue previously and got similar response from someone higher up. The public Bug Tracker is used by members of the public as well as the Experimental and QA teams, and you probably will run into members of the latter two sooner or later.

Moved to Kerbal Network.

However, as he stated, the bug you reported isn't in fact -- by definition -- a bug. It is an intended functionality of the game. If you want to submit to the Tracker a request that it change, you need to use a feature/feedback request, not a bug report.

[regex]

However, as he stated, the bug you reported isn't in fact -- by definition -- a bug. It is an intended functionality of the game. If you want to submit to the Tracker a request that it change, you need to use a feature/feedback request, not a bug report.

That is an obvious inaccuracy in the math this game uses and most certainly NOT a "feature request". I also don't think it's for someone who is not a SQUAD employee to dictate the ideological direction of this game, as Geschosskopf clearly thinks they can.

[Sky_walker]

It's similar to the bug with game using incorrect g values for some of the calculations.

Sure you might argue it's "working as intended" - never the less it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

[sjwt]

That is an obvious inaccuracy in the math this game uses and most certainly NOT a "feature request". I also don't think it's for someone who is not a SQUAD employee to dictate the ideological direction of this game, as Geschosskopf clearly thinks they can.

Not sure what you mean, are you implying for example that If Squad makes a Blue car,and sells it as blue(and it is blue) but you want a green car, that the issue is Squads?

From the main website "KSP is a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space."

KSP is not sold as a simulator, it is not developed as a simulator, as said in the previous post, you are unaware of what others do and do not know, but this its self as a topic is not the first time its been brought up, and squad to my knowledge have stated that they have no intention of changing how this works on multiple occasions.

If you must have something more realistic please check out Orbiter, as a game about little green men who make rockets out junkyard parts and don't need food, air or N body physics might just not be what you're after.

[sal_vager]

Sometimes we have to step back from things and take a look at the whole picture Regex, there are many areas where the game is not accurate, you already know them so I won't repeat them here.

Engines used to have both their thrust and their efficiency fixed, unalterable, inaccurate.

When ISP was added Squad chose to keep max engine thrust constant for each engine and to make fuel consumption variable depending on air pressure, this was to simplify things for players who didn't understand ISP as they can just add more fuel tanks, and to retain compatibility with the huge number of craft that players had already made, most players would find their craft "broken" with engines too feeble at sea level to launch.

While we gained some realism, some was sacrificed for gameplay, so while Kerbal engines do not have variable max thrust like Human engines do, they instead automatically adjust fuel flow to keep running at peak thrust at all altitudes

Aerostatic back pressure was found to be just over-complex for the game.

Edited September 8, 2014 by sal_vager

[tater]

The example of two different values for g being used was raised. This was explicitly written into the code, so not technically a bug, but it is a math error. Presumably they would like to know if someone discovered this, right, as there is no reason for one value to vary from another win both are supposed to be g.

They are using the term "Isp," so presumably they mean, Isp, right? How are we to know that someone didn't just misunderstand what Isp was? Have they explicitly stated that they know Isp is wrong, and they're cool with that, it's "a feature?" If not, how do we not know it wasn't just an early oversight that they are not aware of?

[Wanderfound]

Today I received the following reply.

While I have no interest in getting in the middle of this fight, you probably should have included the note "emphasis added by regex" on that quote. I don't see any bold text in the original, and adding it substantially alters the tone.

[r4pt0r]

So, there would be no problem if instead of calling it Isp, they called it fuel efficiency based on atmosphereic pressure? FEBOAP?

[regex]

Sometimes we have to step back from things and take a look at the whole picture Regex, there are many areas where the game is not accurate, you already know them so I won't repeat them here.

I am looking at the "whole picture" here. I don't think this is a decision for Geschosskopf to make, and I find the fact that someone who is vehemently opposed to anything that even smacks of realism in this game closed that ticket to be downright offensive and obviously driven by bias.

If you must have something more realistic please check out Orbiter, as a game about little green men who make rockets out junkyard parts and don't need food, air or N body physics might just not be what you're after.

Please keep your thoughts about what you think I should be playing to yourself, thank you.

While I have no interest in getting in the middle of this fight, you probably should have included the note "emphasis added by regex" on that quote. I don't see any bold text in the original, and adding it substantially alters the tone.

Corrected, thanks.

[Ted]

Okay, a few notes to add to what has already been said. The Managers of the Bug Tracker are Experimental and QA members - Geschosskopf is the former -, so they do tend to have a very good idea on the finer points of the difference between a bug, feature and feedback. Geschosskopf was correct in marking it as a Feature Request, as vexx32 pointed out it's not unintended behaviour and thus can't really be deemed a Bug. The reasoning behind why it is that way is separated from the issue report itself and the type of issue report it is, that was just him adding in his two cents as to why it might be that way. That said, the Not a Bug status was a clerical error and shouldn't actually be a valid status for a Feature issue type, so I've fixed that up here.

Thanks for raising your issue in the appropriate manner. If you ever have any issue in the Bug Tracker or want to know how to be filling out reports correctly, send me a PM or e-mail.

[KasperVld]

The example of two different values for g being used was raised. This was explicitly written into the code, so not technically a bug, but it is a math error.

This, and if the math error was intended for whatever reason then it is indeed not a bug. Everything is working as intended, even if it is not analogous to the real world physics. As Vexx noted if you want intended functionality to change you should file a 'feedback' or a 'feature' ticket instead. People have "gatekeeper" roles on the bug tracker for various reasons, but I suggest asking Ted for details as I don't know how much I can share.

On a different note I find this thread to be of questionable quality overall. You assume someone is against reality, then you assume they apply that viewpoint to the bug tracker, even if this were true then your bug report still is not a bug, and nothing you say will change that fact. You go even further by saying that that person should not have the ability to "gatekeep" the bug tracker, he does have the ability and for good reason. You need to realise that people don't have it out for you purely because they think differently than you. Seriously.

----

Ninja'd by Ted

[tater]

The trouble is that while technically not a bug, a math error or typo is still an error to be corrected. If they misspelled something in a description, and I submitted a correction, then I assume I would not then use the bug tracker (they intended to use "teh" for "the," clearly, it's right there on the screen, right?). Where should I submit a spelling error (since it is clearly not a programming bug)?

The claim that the error is Isp is an intentional simplification sort of makes no sense, as the real definition would change basically nothing about a new player experience, they'd just learn what to do a little differently---and extant players face possible changes with their gameplay/designs with every patch anyway, it a hazard of playing version 0.whatever.

[regex]

Thank you, Ted.

You need to realise that people don't have it out for you purely because they think differently than you. Seriously.

When a person who has demonstrated an obvious bias against this sort of correction in the past on these forums closes a ticket about that correction in what I deem a very dismissive and biased fashion, I will most certainly assume they "have it out for me".

[KasperVld]

When a person who has demonstrated an obvious bias against this sort of correction in the past on these forums closes a ticket about that correction in what I deem a very dismissive and biased fashion, I will most certainly assume they "have it out for me".

I could understand your argument if it had been an actual bug, but as has been explained in this topic and in Geschosskopf's reply to your ticket it's not. If a bug report addresses something that is not a bug and the ticket is therefore closed for being "not a bug" how does that go to show that he's targeting you because you want realism? Anyway, the issue is now resolved as Ted changed the status to new and Geschosskopf had already changed the category from bug report to feature request. I suggest we leave it at that.

[Rowsdower]

Thank you, Ted.

When a person who has demonstrated an obvious bias against this sort of correction in the past on these forums closes a ticket about that correction in what I deem a very dismissive and biased fashion, I will most certainly assume they "have it out for me".

If there is someone who is so immature as to purposefully screw up a game release in the event that they're trying to pull an agenda, it'd be high time for us to reconsider that person as a tester This is the sort of thing that Ted can spot. If this wasn't kosher to what's being tested right now and it was sensed that there was something more personal behind it, people would be pulled aside.

[regex]

I could understand your argument if it had been an actual bug, but as has been explained in this topic

Said argument had not been made until now.

in Geschosskopf's reply to your ticket it's not.

As I have explained several times, I considered Geschosskopf's reply suspect given their history of posting on these forums, especially given the use of a dismissive phrase that is taken up by anyone who may not agree with that particular "feature" (or other sorts of "realism" things) being a bug. That sort of phrasing is just as inflammatory as sjwt's "Go play Orbiter" post above.

If there is someone who is so immature as to purposefully screw up a game release in the event that they're trying to pull an agenda, it'd be high time for us to reconsider that person as a tester This is the sort of thing that Ted can spot. If this wasn't kosher to what's being tested right now and it was sensed that there was something more personal behind it, people would be pulled aside.

That's good to know, thanks.

[Red Iron Crown]

Not sure what you mean, are you implying for example that If Squad makes a Blue car,and sells it as blue(and it is blue) but you want a green car, that the issue is Squads?

From the main website "KSP is a game where the players create and manage their own space program. Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals to fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space."

KSP is not sold as a simulator, it is not developed as a simulator, -snip-

The About page claims directly that it has an accurate flight simulation: "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should." I don't know how to read that as anything other than it being marketed as a simulator. I'm fine with some simulation inaccuracy to facilitate better gameplay, accommodate performance limitations, or as a result of the game's early state of development; however the statement that "it's not sold as a simulator" is belied by the very description of the game.

[Rowsdower]

The About page claims directly that it has an accurate flight simulation: "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should." I don't know how to read that as anything other than it being marketed as a simulator. I'm fine with some simulation inaccuracy to facilitate better gameplay, accommodate performance limitations, or as a result of the game's early state of development; however the statement that "it's not sold as a simulator" is belied by the very description of the game.

Kerbal Space Program is not intended to be a 100% realistic sim. The game is meant to be a close, but not completely realistic depiction of space flight. While the game is grounded in many ways, there are certainly cartoonish elements in place by design.

Don't mind me for quoting myself. That was recent and in the realism thread. However, now we're starting to get into similar territory. Between that and Ted detailing things regarding the topic at hand, I'm closing this thread.