What is the point of the Suggestions subforum?

[Ted]

While I'm technically not a "Dev", QA is on the Production side of things, I feel that I can offer some hopefully useful input here.

I actively read the Suggestions and Development Discussions sub-forum. About twice a week or over a slow weekend, as I'm winding down from the day I'll peruse the sub-forum for interesting topics of discussion and for suggestions about features etc. etc. As I'm sure you're all aware there is a lot of quality discussion on the sub-forum and there's a lot of useful suggestions. I really enjoy reading them, some can be a bit odd but that tends to be due to it being a new player not quite grasping the scope of the game (suggesting boats) or someone that is just brimming over with ideas and wants to let everyone know (these are always pretty great to read as they tend to be the most passionate).

So why don't I reply? Here's where it's important that we remember that game development and production is a team effort. Just because I like an idea and it seems viable from my perspective, doesn't mean that it will be viable from a developer's perspective. If I were to reply and say "This is a fantastic idea, really love it!" then one might take it as canon that the idea is not only being considered, but developed and implemented as well. When in fact, while I liked the idea, when discussed with the rest of the team we came to realise that it wouldn't be so simplistic and intuitive in implementation and wasn't viable at all. Remember, it's a team effort and decisions about the content to be implemented are far from made on a whim.

So why don't I say the suggestion is being looked into and keep the OP updated? This one is a pretty simple answer that I'm sure we're all familiar with in our lives; not enough time. The sheer amount of time it would take me to reply to every thread with my thoughts on it is far beyond what I have spare even on a good day. However, this does bring me to my next point.

So why don't I join the big discussions? These are the ones that I try to pay the most attention to as there tends to be a valid reason that everyone and their Nan is replying to a thread. However, these threads move incredibly quickly and in some cases the latter pages of discussion have developed far beyond what the OP was discussing. Even if the discussion has evolved to a more viable point, jumping straight into that post without context can make grasping the gist of what the discussion is about very difficult. Here's where the initiative of summaries does become useful. I am on occasion passed a thread by a moderator, especially those ones about bugs, and they give me the gist of the thread thankfully. But in cases where it's simply me browsing through S&DD, a quick check of the forum can turn into an hour of reading through the various large threads currently active and here it would be useful for the OP to keep the OP updated with what the current conclusion is about.

That's my tupence on the matter really, take from it what you will.

[Red Iron Crown]

This came about after a short exchange with 5thHorseman in the Resources thread, p17-18. Is he a troll?

Two bits of data (or three, or four) don't suggest a pattern of behaviour. Everything else does.

I don't think it was 5thHorseman who trolled you, I think you read his comments through the lens of the comments of the person who did. 5th never said that Squad ignores all suggestions or community feedback, just that they don't generally respond directly to it and aren't under any obligation to implement popular suggestions (which is not the same thing at all).

Again, if you honestly think that no official attention is paid to the Suggestions forum then you're probably best served by not participating there. IMO only the most cynical think that way, but the choice is yours, of course.

Edit: Ninja'd, and with much better evidence that Squad people actually read the Suggestions forum.

[John FX]

This came about after a short exchange with 5thHorseman in the Resources thread, p17-18. Is he a troll?

Two bits of data (or three, or four) don't suggest a pattern of behaviour. Everything else does.

Ah you mean where this was said

The announcement for the feature in the final version of the game was listed as "Deep space refueling". There's absolutely no reason to believe SQUAD is going to be taking further steps to implement extrakerbestrial construction.

In fact the title of the thread is pretty misleading in that regard: SQUAD didn't announce resources, just refueling.

then you replied with

That would mean we're all wasting our time here. I'd appreciate if there were some official word on whether they made a decision or if they're still considering the question, or monitoring this thread.

So it seems that this all started with a thread about resources based on misunderstanding feedback from the Devs who were talking about deep space refuelling (a suggested feature)

Then lethaldose posted

Yeah, there's a good chance anyone posting here is wasting time, which is what happens with the vast majority of these "this is how I think Squad should implement X" threads.

The official word will be that "SQUAD watches any threads and takes the community's opinions seriously", which is true, just not in ways that ever seem to work out well, e.g. the community's recent flip-out about the barns' textures delayed the release of up-gradable buildings.

IMO, SQUAD has a really sketchy history when it comes to clarity in what they say and double-speak. There's no way to tell exactly what the devs mean by "deep-space refueling" until they officially present it. Who knows, they might even use ideas presented here, but I wouldn't count on it.

which seems to be the start of `devs don`t pay much attention to threads` while saying at the same time that they react too strongly to the content of threads and what we all post.

THEN 5th came in with

I said both of these things on the first page of this thread, and I see no reason to think either are untrue now, 16 pages later.

And this is not Squad's fault. It's our fault, as a group. Squad says they're going to add an inch in the game, we get mad at them for not implementing a mile.

so it`s a bit disengenuous to say he started it and mention trolling in the same sentence...

Sorry for the wall of quotes but dishonesty gets my goat.

EDIT : Double Ninja`d!

I do think summaries are a good idea for devs, mods, and users but this thread won`t convince many people to adopt the policy. Not how it is being presented here.

I really think a new thread phrased as a suggestion would get a much more positive response all round...

Edited November 28, 2014 by John FX

[CaptainKipard]

Good formatting like Teds there should also be a thing in Suggestions. Anyway that settles it for me; I'll just start writing summaries. Now guys please make an effort to convince others to do it too. A simple "how-to" sticky will do. I'll even write one if need be.

@John. My bad I remembered incorrectly. You get the general idea though.

[John FX]

Good formatting like Teds there should also be a thing in Suggestions. Anyway that settles it for me; I'll just start writing summaries. Now guys please make an effort to convince others to do it too. A simple "how-to" sticky will do. I'll even write one if need be.

@John. My bad I remembered incorrectly. You get the general idea though.

Yeah, fair enough.

I`d actually be quite interested in looking at summaries and a `how to` I honestly think they would be a good idea.

[Kegereneku]

Not to say summary aren't a good idea but it is being done already.

Several topic maker already did and do write summary in their first post, the problem is that they (naturally) tend to only keep the element they agree with or that go with their opinion (both in [suggestion] and [discussion] topic).

Not-so-hypothetical Example : Someone wanting a "Solar-sail" gameplay with "Laser propelled Sail" for "Interstellar travel" might be told by several other member many reasons why it is not possible or viable in KSP even though the sail could use a simplified model, but write in his summary "would work with simplified model".

Having created such topic myself, I know it can be discouraging to try to summarize a discussion where someone is trying to impose the "merit" of his own idea over other's opinions.

So we fall back to the problem of reaching a consensus. many persons can reach a consensus, as long as it is theirs.

Someone wanted an example of a feature that was suggested there and included in the game ? => I propose the contract system.

Long ago, when we were discussing whether KSP should be objective-driven or Open-driven, there was a lot of discussion about avoiding "restricting objectives" while "following the intent of the player".

...I can't say the contract system/fine print are reading the "intent" of the player, but it does avoid railroading.

At least this topic seem to confirm why the suggestion subforum work as it do now, and why it isn't a bad thing.

[megatiger78]

suggestions subforum? I looked for it and couldn't find it?

[Kegereneku]

Here you go,

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/59-Suggestions-and-Development-Discussion

Do not forget to read the "Already suggested List" and the "What not to suggest ?" topic

[CaptainKipard]

Not to say summary aren't a good idea but...problem...

Maybe you could try problem-solving instead of nay-saying all the time.

[Scoundrel]

Well there was the single button to provide max throttle, the additions to the NAVBall and the new spaceplane parts which were all suggested IIRC

The additions to the navball were going to be implemented from the outset - there's a thread from a long time ago by Neomorph about an improved navball which I believe spawned a few mods, one of which, if memory serves, got a dev to respond that they had intended to include those features it but decided to hold off until later. I wish I could remember more, but it was so long ago and my mind is on pizza. Mmmm pizza.

The new spaceplane parts were created by a modder who may or may not have gotten their ideas from the suggestions subforum, and then the modder was hired to bring in their mods into the game - which has happened at least 3 times... I'd say 4, but I don't remember Nova bringing anything into the game from his mods, and that was more than 2 years ago. Actually, so was C7 now that I think about it, so it's just been Lyrae and Porkjet in the last 2 years. Which reminds me, someone should post in the suggestions forum that the interior of the Mk2 lander can needs to be updated.

The max throttle button... I honestly don't know the history, so you actually may have me there! Touché! You win a banana... but don't show that to the devs or they'll beat you up and steal it. Gotta watch your back around those damned codemonkeys... I hear Squad keeps them hungry so they'll type faster!

While I'm technically not a "Dev", QA is on the Production side of things, I feel that I can offer some hopefully useful input here.

................................................

So why don't I reply? Here's where it's important that we remember that game development and production is a team effort... Remember, it's a team effort and decisions about the content to be implemented are far from made on a whim.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Ted. I kinda miss seeing you around on the forums.

Firstly, I just want to point out that nobody here has suggested that the devs take time out to spend hours each day wading through post after post and respond in detail to the suggestions. What I believe most of us are looking for is a "should we continue to invest time discussing this or not" notice that makes the effort invested in continuing the discussion worthwhile. Obviously we shouldn't expect a commitment - I don't know why people keep bringing this up. Simply saying "We like the idea and may consider implementing it but it will be a low priority so no promises" or a "The team discussed the idea and we don't see it fitting in with our vision of the game, sorry" would be more than enough statement to put something to rest or to continue the discussion.

Personally, I'm glad people find the discussions entertaining and informative... I just think that (and this is me personally, I can't speak for anyone else) the vitriol the suggestions subforum creates is unnecessary. The rocket building subforums are one of my favourite threads to read and post in because the discussion is constructive, lively and positive. I can't recall a negative thread there (I'm sure there's at least one, but I haven't found it), which makes me wonder why we don't have a similarly positive experience on the suggestions subforums. I don't have a problem with anyone on the boards, and really never have... and I respect people being passionate about their position and their stance, even if they aren't always tactful (a crime that I too am occasionally guilty of). I certainly don't take anything personally (nor seriously, but what do expect from someone named Scoundrel who likes a game about little green men flying to the moon?), but I do wonder at what we could achieve if all these intelligent participants channeled our discord into applying some problem solving and critical thinking towards achieving solutions.

Cynically, I must confess that I personally felt that the suggestions subforum had ceased being useful - in its current incarnation.

Ted's response has made me rethink that position somewhat (I am a reasonable person, after all), and his post about a summary has made me wonder: what if there was a proposal structure in place, sort of like the rocket subforums where someone says "Hey, I want to build X. Can anyone help?" and a voting mechanism for how many people want to see it in the game (we'll ignore negative votes), following which there is a lively discussion and debate (and probably some borderline flaming... hey, it is the suggestions subforum after all!), which in turn causes the proposal to be updated, and so on. Thus devs or their minions will see a structured first post and can scan the rest of the thread for tidbits of info and then, after the Team has debated the idea and drunk their banana smoothies, perhaps a person with a red name can toss us a crumb in the form of a perfectly non-commital response (yea or nay) on the thread.

Otherwise I fear that the cycle of negativity and the malaise that affects this board will render us all cynical old curmudgeons that spend our days sitting in our rocking chairs on our porches with shotguns resting on our laps, and shaking our canes at the naive youngsters who are foolish enough to step onto our lawns while we wistfully reminisce about the old days of KSP, where rockets were steam powered and we used to get five quarters to the dollar, and everything was under 6 feet of snow and we had to walk in our bare feet uphill (both ways), and maneuver nodes... hell, we didn't have no maneuver nodes in the old days! Kids don't know how good they have it... Why I remember when you used to have to time your ascent and fly by the navball and velocity and altitude alone! And landing legs? Why, I remember landing on fins FINS! that you had to put on carefully so your engine wouldn't get knocked off when you landed!

I better stop now. I think I've just revealed how old I really am.

[CaptainKipard]

I wrote my first summary here. Any thoughts on the format, length, detail etc?

Edited November 29, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Red Iron Crown]

Not bad, Cpt. Kipard. I think you've hit a good balance for detail, a single line summary with a link to a post with more detail is a great way to do it (though I'd imagine it's a bit laborious).

I haven't been following that thread, are you only listing ideas about which there is some consensus or are you touching on the more controversial ideas, too?

[CaptainKipard]

Yeah it's laborious for sure, but I imagine from now on I'll make a list as a thread develops, rather than reading the whole thing towards the end.

Consensus only. Ideas which were mentioned once, and either ignored or refuted wouldn't make sense in a summary in my eyes, but I'm open to having my mind changed. With Logic

[Kegereneku]

I don't care how negative Cpt.Kipard will find me, but a summary is biased and personal in essence even it was done by a professional. I will not embellish things and pretend a thread-summary will or should be given more attention from developers.

Making summary is inherently a good things because we like reading well constructed suggestion, that's a good basic skill to encourage. But in our context this is what everyone try to do anyway on the Suggestion subforum and Cpt.Kipard will realize it some day. We write topic and message that summarize what we think of our ideas or someone else's ideas.

I happen to like Cpt.Kipard's personal suggestion about the tech-tree so I invite him more to make a NEW THREAD with this personal-summary to increase its visibility. Because what's more important is to know when to start a new thread. As said before the size and rating of a topic is no indicator of its quality and most thread will reach a critical size at which good idea/consensus get forgotten by whoever last posted. So it can be better to let a topic fade away and make something new from what we read in the first topic.

Now, the reason the Suggestion sub-forum impact have changed have been stated numerous time here,

As the game get more and more complex KSP will not drastically change to take another route as some people would like. Not unless you do all the work of coding and testing the idea as a mods.

Yet, as pointed out before this subforum is still useful for those "little details" that can appear as part of anyone's suggestions. Even though I fear the main use we do of it is to keep other forum clean from topic about "super ideas that will revolutionize the game and must be implemented".

This is unfortunate that developers cannot for many practical reasons give a feedback, but it wasn't possible or necessary to begin with.

If you write a suggestion while asking for recognition, you are suggesting wrong.

I haven't been following that thread, are you only listing ideas about which there is some consensus or are you touching on the more controversial ideas, too?

Not to badmouth but in this particular thread HIS idea is the most open & popular idea so he couldn't have missed controversial idea even if he tried. He's just copy/pasting his own pictures and without mentioning other suggestions no one gave much attention to, like "technological evolution through milestone achievement" or "themes based fixed-tree" closer to the actual (0.25) tech-tree.

With your question I would be waiting him on the Resources-thread. Barely anything close to a consensus was reached on this thread.

[CaptainKipard]

Pxi wrote a draft of a summary for the resource thread here. I'm mentioning it because he also included contentious ideas, and marked them as such. If any mod or Squad member is considering writing a how-to sticky for writing summaries, then this is another thing that could be included.

[John FX]

Yeah it's laborious for sure, but I imagine from now on I'll make a list as a thread develops, rather than reading the whole thing towards the end.

Consensus only. Ideas which were mentioned once, and either ignored or refuted wouldn't make sense in a summary in my eyes, but I'm open to having my mind changed. With Logic

I don't care how negative Cpt.Kipard will find me, but a summary is biased and personal in essence even it was done by a professional. I will not embellish things and pretend a thread-summary will or should be given more attention from developers.

Making summary is inherently a good things because we like reading well constructed suggestion, that's a good basic skill to encourage. But in our context this is what everyone try to do anyway on the Suggestion subforum and Cpt.Kipard will realize it some day. We write topic and message that summarize what we think of our ideas or someone else's ideas.

...

If you write a suggestion while asking for recognition, you are suggesting wrong.

I agree that a suggestion should not be made for the purpose of self validation, it shows a hubris that should not be present.

Cpt has shown that he will be making choices as to what is included in the summary which will have a bias attached, even if that is not the intention. I don`t agree with having any bias in the summary, refuted or ignored ideas should still be present with a note to say they were ignored or refuted. It is not the job of the OP to filter out concepts from the devs, just to summarise. As you say, you will be filtering out stuff that does not make sense to YOU, which does not mean it does not make sense to others.

I`m not happy with a single person deciding what the devs see in a thread. Either every concept in a summary or no summary in my eyes...

As with anything that is based on ideas from people, most people will have average ideas a few people have bad ideas and a single person usually has the best idea, being that the best ideas are rare and average ideas are common. I don`t think it is in the best interests of the game to not include ideas that are only stated once or even not agreed with by people who lack the ability to see the benefit. It is only logical to include all the ideas and the reception they got in the thread if the purpose is to summarise the thread so some third party can get an honest view of the thread. It suggests a bias and agenda to exclude ANY concepts, even ones that were ignored or refuted.

The worst software is software designed by committee consensus guided by someone with an agenda...

That process stops software reaching its full potential and it becomes very mediocre.

I don`t want KSP to become software like that.

EDIT :

Pxi wrote a draft of a summary for the resource thread here. I'm mentioning it because he also included contentious ideas, and marked them as such. If any mod or Squad member is considering writing a how-to sticky for writing summaries, then this is another thing that could be included.

Seems like a much better summary which has less bias toward any particular individual forum users desires. Links to the posts would be good.

Edited December 1, 2014 by John FX

[CaptainKipard]

John, do you understand the contradiction in implying that a summary based on consensus is biased? It's like saying scientific consensus is biased... well it's balanced in favour of what most likely to be true, sure, but that's just a word game.

I mean my summary is biased in favour of ideas that have the most support, if anything, but that's how it should be.

There's value in adding unresolved ideas, because the devs might think of a solution that works for everyone, but ideas that have been easily refuted or ignored don't deserve any spotlight.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Crimson Sunrise]

If I wrote a specifications document on how the feature I'm suggesting should work, would that be taken into consideration better? Just curious. Think of it like a Python PEP or something like that.

[longbyte1]

If I wrote a specifications document on how the feature I'm suggesting should work, would that be taken into consideration better? Just curious. Think of it like a Python PEP or something like that.

This would work as a mod proposal, but not a feature proposal because Squad needs to make the idea in question flexible to develop derivative ideas that can be implemented into the game.

Also, the game has been declared (almost) scope-complete with the arrival of 0.90. Does this indeed make the Suggestions forum pointless now?

[Red Iron Crown]

Also, the game has been declared (almost) scope-complete with the arrival of 0.90. Does this indeed make the Suggestions forum pointless now?

Not at all, IMO. There's still room to suggest refinements and rebalances to existing features, parts and game mechanics even if the only big features planned to be added are better aero, resources and multiplayer.

[Crimson Sunrise]

This would work as a mod proposal, but not a feature proposal because Squad needs to make the idea in question flexible to develop derivative ideas that can be implemented into the game.

Also, the game has been declared (almost) scope-complete with the arrival of 0.90. Does this indeed make the Suggestions forum pointless now?

It's certainly better than vaguely suggesting something in hopes of my suggestion being taken into consideration. I don't personally know or care how much the game's developers take the suggestions thread into consideration or seriously so...I'm just wondering.

Also, a game is only done when you stop working on it. A good example of that would be what Bethesda does. When they want a game done, they stop patching and updating it, then move on.

[CaptainKipard]

Well it's been nearly a month and no summary-writing guide has materialised. If I write one will anyone sticky it?

[vexx32]

We'll consider it, definitely.

(I don't think I'd make that decision on my own, though. But if it looks to be worthwhile, I'm sure the others will agree.)

[CaptainKipard]

Obviously you can deliberate on whether I do a good job of it or not, but I'm specifically asking if my effort will be in vain.