Secret feature is completely underwhelming.

[Parallax]

Maxmaps said it paves the way for a new feature in 0.26.......

like what? more exploding buildings? upgradeable buildings? sounds lame as hell, sure you can turn it off, but all the time spent on making it work could have gone towards something else that would have actually added something to the gameplay, like another gas giant with some moons to land on, or proper aerodynamics, or stock servos, or a career mode with replay value (i'm sorry but the current career mode just sucks), etc etc

Edited September 27, 2014 by Parallax

[bitbucket]

This will go in the "turn it off and forget it exists" category for me, but to each their own.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I can see it now. Somebody is testing a new rover design. They accidentally (as in really unintentional) bump into the VAB or hangar and the whole space center goes up.

Yeah, that's gonna be funny the first few dozen times, then it's gonna get old and be turned off.

well, he hit the VAB with two SRBs and it didn't blow up, so the buildings seem somewhat resilient. Now if you flew your entire spacecraft into it...

[KasperVld]

like what? more exploding buildings? upgradeable buildings? sounds lame as hell, sure you can turn it off, but all the time spent on making it work could have gone towards something else that would have actually added something to the gameplay, like another gas giant with some moons to land on, or proper aerodynamics, or stock servos, a career mode with replay value (i'm sorry but the current career mode just sucks), etc etc

This is not really true because the destructible buildings use the framework for a bigger feature in 0.26 which would've been written anyway (from what I can tell, I'm not a dev!). Not including it in 0.25 would've therefore saved very little if any time.

[AmpsterMan]

It stems from the continued reinforcement of the perception that Kerbals are idiots who deserve to blow up by provided even more gratifying means to do so. A minor annoyance? Nothing to worry about? Maybe, but I completely agree with bac9's paragraph on why portraying them as stupid is bad for the game and this feature is just going to lead to more of that sort of thing.

You know, I agree with this notion. I, too, don't like the popular perception of Kerbals. I loved it when Bac9 went on that little aside in his mammoth post. That said, blowing things up, space tape, and a little bit of seat of your pants flying is also part of the game. It's interesting; Squad has made a game that is both very cerebral and geeky, and yet also a game that is cartoony and childish. I, for my part kinda like the interplay between the two.

That said, personally I wish Squad worked on other things first or prioritized different things; the minor feature is underwhelming to me as well, but ultimately I like it too

[Alshain]

My complaint is not that it's in there but that they spent 3 weeks teasing us and building hype on something that has nothing to do with enhancing the game really. It's about space exploration, not mass carnage. Sure some people will like it for 5 minutes, but it never the less was not worth 3 weeks of building people's expectations.

[Camacha]

I cannot help but feel people are overreacting. You do not like it? That happens sometimes in life.

[Sky_walker]

Well the current thought by some is upgradable buildings. Part of the code here is probably (at least in part) the ability to change the look of the building in the space center if that is really what is coming. Once one is past that, making a destroyed building model and adding the explosion animations they were adding into the game anyway seems rather trivial.

So trivial that it takes numerous patches to get new 3D models for parts that were long due for them?

You are missing the point. I understand that functionality might lead to some interesting future features, but... game is missing so many core updates that it's difficult to count them all.

Thankfully we will get something in 0.25 (long live Porkjet and whoever came up with the idea of integrating SP+) but still - that "small feature" looks an awful lot like "days if not weeks of work" considering how long it took devs to implement other models till now.

I'm not sure what a Mexican developer could do about this to be honest, and personally I can understand Max just fine

Same here - I understand guy just fine, and I'm not too good with weird accents (Mexican accent is something you rarely if ever hear in Europe)

[Sky_walker]

I cannot help but feel people are overreacting. You do not like it? That happens sometimes in life.

Noone is overreacting. It's not like anyone asked devs to remove the feature. Let's not turn it into the flame war, shall we?

[dryer_lint]

What will happen in Sandbox though?

[TimberWolffe]

okay so destructible buildings are cool and all, but if I remember right we were outright told that it wasn't destructible buildings, which isn't so much of a "get them away from the topic" to me, it was more of an outright lie. >.>

(but do we get to rebuild them bigger and better and more badS?)

[Virtualgenius]

Really destructible buildings WHY ? surely the time could have been better spent on fixing other aspects of the game or adding other features

[Seshins]

And on another note, Maxmaps, (nothing personal) but your Spanish accent is really hard to follow, I had the volume pretty much cranked but, only understood about half of what you were saying, (it's when you talk fast)..

I can hear him, his english is fine and easily understood. Maybe you are just hard of hearing?

[Draft]

Yeah. "This is underwhelming" doesn't mean it's a bad feature necessarily.

Just that it isn't remotely deserving of all the hype that's been placed upon it by the community and the devs.

[Alshain]

(but do we get to rebuild them bigger and better and more badS?)

That is almost assuredly the new feature in 0.26 that it is supposed to lead to.

Yeah. "This is underwhelming" doesn't mean it's a bad feature necessarily.

Just that it isn't remotely deserving of all the hype that's been placed upon it by the community and the devs.

Precisely. The word is anticlimactic.

[Spuds]

IMO, the feature on its own is a bit underwhelming, but it does open a lot of exciting possibilities. Like, having part damage scale with impact force on the ground, seeing as how the KSC buildings only register the impact after a certain threshold. Or having deformable terrain, which will open up new gameplay opportunities for things like colonization. Imagine flattening a portion of a landscape to land rovers on, or set up a base.

In retrospect, the fact that they said that it was a large feature codewise and a small feature gameplay wise would make sense, seeing as how destructible buildings are a small part of the game that you would only sometimes encounter. I'm pretty excited for 0.25, and by extention, 0.26.

[KasperVld]

okay so destructible buildings are cool and all, but if I remember right we were outright told that it wasn't destructible buildings, which isn't so much of a "get them away from the topic" to me, it was more of an outright lie. >.>

And unless you can provide a quote of such a definite statement yours is quite slanderous

[Camacha]

Noone is overreacting. It's not like anyone asked devs to remove the feature. Let's not turn it into the flame war, shall we?

The mere suggestion I would be instigating a flame war is silly.

Yes, talking about being underwhelmed and feelings that Squad wasted people's time with the build up sounds a bit... spoiled. Be happy with what you get, I would say. It seems people had expectations and are disappointed theirs did not come true. Well, that happens, as it is impossible to do everything.

Other communities have the nasty habit of complaining whatever happens - it is just a different part that complains depending on what changes. I would hate to see the KSP community to go down that route.

[Draft]

There are a lot of things in KSP that open up exciting possibilities, but that doesn't mean anything if Squad doesn't pursue them. We still only have three bodies with biomes, tweakables have only been utilized to a minimal extent, that sort of thing.

[Sky_walker]

okay so destructible buildings are cool and all, but if I remember right we were outright told that it wasn't destructible buildings, which isn't so much of a "get them away from the topic" to me, it was more of an outright lie. >.>

(but do we get to rebuild them bigger and better and more badS?)

You and your details.

I guess they told it so that people would keep on speculating and comming up with ideas. So they did, and some of these ideas were really good.

and, yea: quote would be nice

[Tw1]

This is the last time I tell myself, "No, they've got a solid roadmap. I'm sure they're churning through the core elements and issues we've all been discussing." Next update it all, "What uselessly exciting bolt-on will it be this time. Not fixed aerodynamics, that's for sure."

Destructable buildings has been a planned feature for a while. And it is a step to 0.26's feature, which I suspect icould be damageable parts. I think the have a plan. I don't mind if it's not a complete plan, if it gives them room to add more features.

I'm trying to think of a "small but funny" feature that would be any better than this. Sometimes I wonder what feature they could have done to not make some people here NOT unhappy.

It wouldn't be funny, but female kerbals? That's also mostly modelling, Especially if you recall the debate around the new administrator Kerbals all being male.

[cantab]

I'm quite sure that it doesn't go any further than the destructable buildings.

I'd say it puts Kerbal towns and cities as a VERY strong possibility. It would really bring Kerbin to life and would explain the artists being very busy. Those towns and cities need to be destructible to come into the gameplay. And just so you don't ignore them, add some lucrative contracts asking you to do things like land a plane on a tricky runway, making for high-risk high-reward. Or even a contract to destroy a particular building in a city somewhere.

I can see it now. Somebody is testing a new rover design. They accidentally (as in really unintentional) bump into the VAB or hangar and the whole space center goes up.

Yeah, that's gonna be funny the first few dozen times, then it's gonna get old and be turned off.

Unless it's a jet-propelled (or rocket-propelled) rover it's not going to hurt the VAB. And if you build a jet-propelled rover you deserve what you get.

[Franklin]

My complaint is not that it's in there but that they spent 3 weeks teasing us and building hype on something that has nothing to do with enhancing the game really.

I have a feeling a lot of you will be disappointed. This mystery feature is probably not what the hype is making it out to be.

[Sky_walker]

I'd say it puts Kerbal towns and cities as a VERY strong possibility. It would really bring Kerbin to life and would explain the artists being very busy. Those towns and cities need to be destructible to come into the gameplay. And just so you don't ignore them, add some lucrative contracts asking you to do things like land a plane on a tricky runway, making for high-risk high-reward. Or even a contract to destroy a particular building in a city somewhere.

Towns need destructable buildings?

this feature is in any way liked to the towns?

what?

this makes exactly zero sense.

[Camacha]

Who is the first to Photoshop together a hype cycle?