Secret feature is completely underwhelming.

[juanml82]

I believe this is just half the argument that's being presented in that, we're not concerned that this is an inclusion that nobody asked for (let's be factual though, it isn't), ultimately it's a meaningless, flashy bolt-on. But rather it's a cobble stone on a roadmap we're not privy to knowing, and it's a developmental process that is often neglectful of very vocal concerns and requests of Squad's alpha tester pool.

At this point some developmental drift, which I chalk this up to, is less of a yellow card than us slowly realizing we're not really sure where Squad wants to take KSP, but it's at least not committedly in the direction we keep asking for. I mean, we've got verbose blog posts about the over-arcing vision of KSP, but no actual, concrete roadmap in what we're to expect with the end-game development. No flames to hold their feet to.

And it's not like that's outside the realm of reason, many great games have a solid roadmap, that customers can agree upon before purchase. Giving your customer base a vague sense of scope, with the guise that "It's an adventure that we hope you'll all be a part of," only works for so long.

So while concerns that Squad is losing focus were quiet and few back on patch .18, here on patch .25 a number of us (and let's not pretend it's just 3 a-holes here and 1 on Reddit) are getting restless to check Squad's playbook for the future of KSP. Because some of us are concerned it's blank.

edit: Like, let's be clear. Everyone here loves the game [in theory] and Squad [in theory], but we all want to shape this product together. We're just concerned that left-field additions made without request are actually shows of a disinterest in alpha tester desire, which from a product-development standpoint, always ends up unprofitable long term.

The problem is that "we"/"the community"/"people posting in this forum" doesn't have to equal "the majority of people who buy KSP"

As for "shaping this product together"... well, we're customers, not stockholders. We own a copy (or maybe not, that depends on the EULA and each customer's local laws), we do not own Squad or KSP.

Companies need to hear what their intended target has to say, but the proper way to do it isn't to listen to two or three dozen people in an Internet forum but to rely on actual marketing surveys and techniques.

As for memory management, aerodynamic models, more planets and everything else, the devs said they intend to develop all the features they want into the game first and then they'll get to fix, balance, fine tune, etc. That may or may not be of the liking of us customers. But that's up to Squad.

[Draft]

Amen Dude.

However, Squad chose not to build a roadmap for fear that they would not be able to deliver.

If Squad has no faith in their ability to develop, why should we?

[AmpsterMan]

Okay guys, let's get back on track. Discussion of SQUAD and their development plans are for other places not here. Thank you.

[Franklin]

Okay guys, let's get back on track. Discussion of SQUAD and their development plans are for other places not here. Thank you.

Maybe regex could give us insight into what this thread's roadmap is.

[Vanamonde]

No flames to hold their feet to.

What on earth ever gave you the idea that you should have this ability or authority?

So while concerns that Squad is losing focus were quiet and few back on patch .18

I think you are remembering the reaction to previous versions with rose-tinted-glasses. There have been accusations that development has gone catastrophically wrong at least as far back as .15, when I found the game.

Because some of us are concerned it's blank.

Basically they don't want to post a roadmap because they don't have one.

Obviously, this is hyperbolic over-statement. It may not be as public as you would like, it may not be as consistent as you would like, but 'no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy.' This kind of outlandish exageration doesn't help make anyone's point.

When stock resources where tanked people raised heil about it.

And, I suspect, this is exactly why they are so reluctant to put forth this roadmap some folks are trying to demand.

If we could actually see a development roadmap, with all of their main goals laid out, perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to hop on their case.

History indicates the reverse. (See the aforementioned resources furor.)

[Wanderfound]

Woo! Picked it day one.

[regex]

Maybe regex could give us insight into what this thread's roadmap is.

There was none. I was simply stating that the feature was underwhelming and completely undeserving of the hype (and that hype, by extension, is a sad, sad thing), but that I also see some potential for cool stuff in the future.

[Masetto]

It's a better "secret feature" than I was expecting. If it was anything more substantial, it would've been in the patch-preview from the get-go.

I really don't understand the point of this thread. It's a funny side-feature that will be irrelevant to a lot of players: just like they said it would be. They didn't lie about it, and it's not at all the main feature of the patch. What standards are they not meeting here? It's like you're complaining about the prize in your Cracker Jack box not being awesome enough.

[TimberWolffe]

O_O stock?

stock loads in about 2 minutes, my heavily modded loads in about 15

[NathanKell]

AvronMullican: Yes, I'm aware people make military ships and mods. That's very different from people taking joy in crashing their own rockets and seeing how many of their own kerbonauts they can kill.

EDIT: Timberwolffe: Part of it is that the loader is sloooow, part of it is that if you load a texture at a time in the background you won't notice it (it's amortized nicely).

[Superfluous J]

Destructible buildings. Yay.

On the other hand, it does open up some cool stuff for the future. Maybe we'll be able to have new KSCs or rearrange this one.

Sweet. It's exactly what they said it would be.

Amusing aside, I learned what the feature was in this thread (Hey I have a life outside KSP okay?) and when I saw the thread title, I assumed it was something actually underwhelming like IVA moving around or a graveyard or whatever else people said. Destructible buildings was exactly what I was hoping for, so you gave me a treat: An upturn after a suspected letdown.

Edited September 27, 2014 by 5thHorseman

[AvronMullican]

AvronMullican: Yes, I'm aware people make military ships and mods. That's very different from people taking joy in crashing their own rockets and seeing how many of their own kerbonauts they can kill.

The point of this game is (IMHO) to whatever one wishes to do,

But the same point of krashing and killing kerbals is in Battling, you goal is to destroy others ships. why does it matter if the ship is your's or your friend's?

[regex]

Should probably lock this thread tbh, it's way off track and leading into places I really didn't want to go.

[Vrana]

That's something that may get another look post-scope complete.

Aerodynamics are now "post-scope complete"? And even then a "maybe"? While stuff like destructable buildings is getting all this attention?

My Saturday is now more sad then it should have been.

I remember the good old days when the current aerodynamics model used to be called "placeholder" and nobody had any doubt in their minds replacing it would be a priority.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Vrana

[TimberWolffe]

There's a reason aerodynamics are the way they are, which is they wanted a solar system that mimics the sun's, but that would be far too large, so they downscaled the size but not the gravity or physics.

[Aragosnat]

Well at least this nice little comic strip certainly captures what 0.25 is going to be about:

[TimberWolffe]

Well at least this nice little comic strip certainly captures what 0.25 is going to be about:

http://www.kerbalcomics.com/comics/2013-01-02-episode-18-planet-of-the-kerbals.png

...COMICS ARE FORESHADOWING

we must investigate further

[NathanKell]

Per the OP's request, shutting this down. It has gone far afield (aero, development plans, and my own personal sidetrack of resource loading).

Not because you can't talk about the feature (there are other threads open right now, for example)--but this has gotten very scattered, and heated, and troubled. Fly safe around each other (not least because crashes will take out buildings too )