Not the KSP I love...

[SickSix]

I just saw someone post "This isn't what KSP is about." The context is the career mode and it's restrictions.

Look, none of us have ever been qualified to say what KSP is about. We haven't even been playing a KSP game until two days ago. We have all been playing what was essentially a tech demo. This is the first version of the actual game anyone has played. So .90 IS WHAT KSP IS ABOUT. This is it.

A lot of folks got used to doing whatever they wanted however they wanted to do it. That was because we were playing a tech demo with hardly any objectives or progression restrictions.

Does anyone really think they were going to let you rocket to orbit with your first vessel and bring back 1300 science in the finished career mode? If you want sandbox play that. But this career mode is the game. Yes it needs minor tweaking, that's why it is published as a beta. But the career mode makes the game. Players in general want a defined progression path. Devs have to give players benchmark s that feel worthwhile.

Remember that we have all been involved with is as testers. IE we are a little more invested than your average game consumer.

The Devs want this to be a commercial success, and that requires a solid career mode with defined limits and barriers so players have something to work towards.

I just had to rant a bit against this idea that we alpha testers somehow know more about what this game is and it's direction than the developers.

[BeastlyBean]

The beta is launched because the primary game functions are working in the game, not done or even remotely finished .

[Greenfire32]

Right there with you, OP.

I mean, there's different versions of career mode (career and science) and then on top of that there's 3 different difficulty defaults, and on top of that there's custom sliders and options to further tailor the experience to each individual's needs.

It's like the majority of people saying, "it's too hard" or "unbalanced, fiiiiiiiix it," are completely, and without a doubt, oblivious to the fact that these options exist for a reason.

"Hurr durr, I only play with defaults, but they're toooo haaard, so now I don't play at all. Thanks for ruining the game, Squad."

Squad, if you read this, KSP Career is fine. It's more than fine, it's great! As a former Sandboxer who didn't really like career mode in it's early stages, I'm telling you it's pretty damned good.

[Franklin]

Intrinsic proprietorship always plays a role in consumer culture, especially among subcultures that identify with a product over an extended period of time, or during growth points. It's not new here or with any other medium.

I mean how many people do you know think X used to be better? Music, tv, clothes, cereal, cars, even vague philosophic mediums like National Pride and Christmas.

It boils down to an ever-evolving world due to a collective attention across progressive generations and an emotional mind that identifies very ridgedly and with a soft filter for the understood and a harsh one for the not understood.

Over time we all feel like things have gotten worse, not because they have, but because things we used to understand have changed and we no longer identify with what we once did.

[Franklin]

Plus nothing not a damn thing matters, we're all living in a blink. Get off the Internet and breathe a little.

[Jarin]

"Hurr durr, I only play with defaults, but they're toooo haaard, so now I don't play at all. Thanks for ruining the game, Squad."

Squad, if you read this, KSP Career is fine. It's more than fine, it's great! As a former Sandboxer who didn't really like career mode in it's early stages, I'm telling you it's pretty damned good.

Do try to separate "whining" from "feedback". "OMG Squad ruined the game" is a very different position from "As a baseline, normal-mode balance could use some tweaks, and here are some suggested improvements..."

This is beta now. This is the time for balance to be hashed out, and the time when feedback on said balance is most valuable.

[Dreamixpl]

Right there with you, OP.

I mean, there's different versions of career mode (career and science) and then on top of that there's 3 different difficulty defaults, and on top of that there's custom sliders and options to further tailor the experience to each individual's needs.

IMHO Squad has very bad developement plan for KSP, they want to do everything at once. Sandbox SHOULD be done first, becouse it's nothing, but true gameplay. Tweakables, UI, manev. nodes, enabling IVA and EVA, map view etc. should be first added. Then Squad could focus on "lego" parts of the game, rocket parts, ivas, engines, more planets. And at the end, Squad could make career mode, cosmetical parts, etc.

This way, beta/alpha testing would be easier, dev. plan, goals, would make sense.

(I always liked KSP and Squad, I played ksp when it was free, and I'm always with it.)

[Greenfire32]

Do try to separate "whining" from "feedback". "OMG Squad ruined the game" is a very different position from "As a baseline, normal-mode balance could use some tweaks, and here are some suggested improvements..."

But that's my entire point. There isn't a whole lot of feedback and a lot more whining going on right now. So much so, that someone felt the need to create a thread on these here forums to address it.

[boxman]

Do try to separate "whining" from "feedback". "OMG Squad ruined the game" is a very different position from "As a baseline, normal-mode balance could use some tweaks, and here are some suggested improvements..."

This is beta now. This is the time for balance to be hashed out, and the time when feedback on said balance is most valuable.

It seems to me most people who complain about difficutly are those who play hard mode. People these days just do not adjust the difficulty based on their skills and then blame the game if they are not good enough. This is why games these days are getting dumbed down so that everyone can complete it even in hard/hardcore mode.

[Funeh]

Agree with OP and boxman. Too many people whining about difficulty while they dont adjust the sliders for it. KSP should be hard game, its a damned simulator... Everyone is used to have super complex space program in earlier versions, and now it suddenly is not that easy so they cry.

[Motokid600]

The only problem I'm having right now is the cost of the building upgrades which apparently sticks to whatever difficulty setting you chose despite your slider settings. But that'll get fixed... Other then that I'm having fun, but without mods adding the following the game feels hollow.

aerodynamics need a new model ( "gravity" turn at 10km is just ridiculous )

More eye candy ( granted the new booster effects are great )

More/better sounds.

DeltaV/TWR readouts ( atleast TWR info ). Why do I have to revert to the VAB five times to perfect my twr?

Engine thrust/isp needs to scale with atmospheric pressure ( like real rockets... I mean c'mon give us atleast that much when it comes to realism. Thats a major fundamental ).

More parts. ( not enough design variety with stock parts )

Option to go aircraft or rocket route in the tech tree on a new game. ( hitting these fineprint waypoint parameters with a rocket built without dV/TWR readouts is my biggest gripe in .90. Seriously... It's zero fun )

... Hopefully all that comes with time.

[Frostiken]

I do have to say one thing regarding this - I've wanted KSP to actually focus on the SPACE PROGRAM aspect more for a while. 0.9 is a start but there's so much more to do.

An X-COM style engineering / science aspect would've been excellent, and a good way to replace the terrible science system we have now. Building facilities, receiving funding, being given mandatory missions, etc.

[Red Iron Crown]

IMHO Squad has very bad developement plan for KSP, they want to do everything at once. Sandbox SHOULD be done first, becouse it's nothing, but true gameplay. Tweakables, UI, manev. nodes, enabling IVA and EVA, map view etc. should be first added. Then Squad could focus on "lego" parts of the game, rocket parts, ivas, engines, more planets. And at the end, Squad could make career mode, cosmetical parts, etc.

I'm confused by this post, because what it describes is almost exactly how KSP was developed so far. Can you elaborate on the differences you see between the plan you lay out and Squad's "very bad" plan?

[Frostiken]

I'm confused by this post, because what it describes is almost exactly how KSP was developed so far. Can you elaborate on the differences you see between the plan you lay out and Squad's "very bad" plan?

Squad has a reputation for developing features halfway and leaving them. I think most everyone agrees the science system is bad, the tech tree absolutely does not feel 'right' and frequently makes no sense, add to that the resources, reentry heating, IVAs, EVAs, life support, space stations, the lack of truly interesting 'set pieces' in the game or things to do on planets besides just landing .... on them. Now also combine that with an extremely glacial development process.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Frostiken

[Rusty6899]

I really don't see much reason to complain, to be honest. This has definitely been the best update since I have started playing (0.21 I think). The game feels much more polished and there is a career mode that you won't complete in 2 days (although I imagine some poeple have). There are a couple of issues that I feel need addressing for balance purposes, but my first impressions of the game in beta is that it is really fun and the restrictions at the start add a lot to the game. I'd never had to fly without SAS or patched conics before, and it offers a new and refreshing challenge to a game that had, in some respects, began to lose my interest.

I find the upgradable buildings allow the player to decide what to prioritise, with their planned missions in mind. Do you want patched conics early to try to get an <18t probe to Duna, or do you want to upgrade the Launchpad and Astronaut Complex and bring back samples from the Mun? (If you can get to the Mun and back with an 18t limit, I would be impressed. It might just be possible, I reckon I'm about 250-300m/s short with level 2 tech).

Even if you don't like the update, the fact is that this game is Squad's game. We can offer feedback, but with the acceptance that if the game doesn't go the way we want it to, we have no right to feel let down.

[Liowen]

The main thing I feel is the real issue is with what players want, they want the game to be tailored to them and not others. Using the aerodynamic model argument some say it needs to be changed, personally if it gets changed I would hope that it is an optional thing that players can choose to use or not. Not everyone uses FAR, NEAR, ect and enjoys the game thy are playing, and thinking that they are enjoying it wrong is just dumb (no soft way to put it really). Given the choice it would be better to leave the aerodynamic model as with ability to mod it than to restructure parts of the game to make it work, let people who want to mod it do so since the mod already works for those that want it. I know I will get flack for this and that is fine since I do not believe I am any more right than those who preach about the aerodynamic model needing to be changed, the difference I am not afraid to admit that fact where they are not.

[tetryds]

Squad has a reputation for developing features halfway and leaving them. I think most everyone agrees the science system is bad, the tech tree absolutely does not feel 'right' and frequently makes no sense, add to that the resources, reentry heating, IVAs, EVAs, life support, space stations, the lack of truly interesting 'set pieces' in the game or things to do on planets besides just landing .... on them. Now also combine that with an extremely glacial development process.

You may have notice that the latest update was called 0.90 BETA.

SQUAD has told us many times that it's approach was always implement features to a working state, to achieve scope completion, then go back and improve them later.

To give you an example, this approach is found on both scientific and engineering methods (it is roughly the feedback functions on the right side).

You never have your product complete before you get the product working, and you cannot balance anything before you get the chance to see how it applies to the whole set of systems within the project.

Another thing is that we always got new content for KSP, even on the updates which added less things, when SQUAD attempted to try to bring more often updates with less content (which took nearly as much time as a content rich update).

Now, with the BETA, is the time SQUAD will look back and come fixing all mistakes along the path, so expect to see a huge ammount of rebalances, bugfixes and parts.

We were not given optimal versions of every game system on every update, simply because the next update would require a new full set of rebalancing.

This would take way too much time and effort, instead, we were given working versions of each system.

Now that all of the systems are implemented, SQUAD can see the game as a whole, and will understand better the impacts of each feature on the gameplay.

One example is that right when science was out we were really missing science being directed, or having engineering points or something like that.

Now that we also have money, such depht in science is not needed anymore, more complete systems like the ones we asked for would only lead to micromanagement.

Also, about things not making sense, they are Kerbals, they do things the Kerbal way, which is not the "dumb" way, but it's certainly not the same way we would do it

Edited December 18, 2014 by tetryds

[WanderingKid]

I find it interesting at those who are complaining at hard mode being too hard. If it's not hard, what's the point? It should be 'squeak by on the edge of your seat doing everything right' hard.

There are games that you can't get to content without mastering the most difficult mode. In cases like this, I find the response to be fair of "I don't want to be left out!". Imagine if, for example, Jool and its moons were left out of anything other than Ironman mode. This would be a case for complaint of direct developer interaction.

However, this isn't the case. This is a case of broken e-peen. "Whatchu mean I'm not playing in the top .00000000001%?! Bull! Your game's too hard! I'm da bestests! You brokes it!"

I agree with you in general, OP. Many of the complaints I see simply need to use the sliders, make your own difficulty make sense. However, when some poor soul on Easy (who admits they have no idea, thus are on easy) can't figure out how to line up a satellite with the information they're given, there's a case for review. Items like this are not whines, they're legitimate concerns, and should be addressed as such. Basically agreeing with Boxman here. *shrugs*

[foamyesque]

The only problem I'm having right now is the cost of the building upgrades which apparently sticks to whatever difficulty setting you chose despite your slider settings. But that'll get fixed... Other then that I'm having fun, but without mods adding the following the game feels hollow.

aerodynamics need a new model ( "gravity" turn at 10km is just ridiculous )

More eye candy ( granted the new booster effects are great )

More/better sounds.

DeltaV/TWR readouts ( atleast TWR info ). Why do I have to revert to the VAB five times to perfect my twr?

Engine thrust/isp needs to scale with atmospheric pressure ( like real rockets... I mean c'mon give us atleast that much when it comes to realism. Thats a major fundamental ).

More parts. ( not enough design variety with stock parts )

Option to go aircraft or rocket route in the tech tree on a new game. ( hitting these fineprint waypoint parameters with a rocket built without dV/TWR readouts is my biggest gripe in .90. Seriously... It's zero fun )

... Hopefully all that comes with time.

Get out of my head

I'd add re-entry heating to that list, though.

For what my two cents are worth, these are my main issues with .9's contract and career system specifically:

1. The rewards for contracts aren't scaled correctly to the relative difficulty of completing them;

2. When contracts unlock aren't scaled correctly to the difficulty of completing them with the parts you have;

3. Early on, there's a lot of trash contracts that won't even pay for the fuel they use;

Squad is very badly misjudging how hard the early contracts are to do. Getting into orbit is considerably easier, especially early in the tech and upgrade process, than hitting specific altitude and velocity marks or going to a specific place above/below a specific height or landing at a specific point on Kerbin.

Edited December 19, 2014 by foamyesque

[workerbee]

Wow. I just have to step in here and say that I love this discussion and some of you have some very great points, ideas, and passion. Holy hell, what a great community.

[Frostiken]

You may have notice that the latest update was called 0.90 BETA.

First of all, beta means 'feature complete' in development. Secondly, you people have been pounding this miserable excuse for years now, and graphics aside, I honestly can't think of any gameplay feature that Squad went back and revamped / improved. I think there's a rumor where the aerodynamics are going to be improved, but I'll believe that when I see it. They've been saying garbage like that for years.

You never have your product complete before you get the product working, and you cannot balance anything before you get the chance to see how it applies to the whole set of systems within the project.

Most of what I listed is not even in the game in a 'testing' fashion. Reentry heating was supposed to come, so they gave us effects, and never put in anything that actually adds heat when you come into the atmosphere. Resources were supposed to be here in some fashion like nine effing versions ago, again, we don't have anything in to support them that's even in pre-alpha state.

You're completely full of it, no developer in the world is still adding 'chunks' of features this late in the development cycle.

Another thing is that we always got new content for KSP, even on the updates which added less things, when SQUAD attempted to try to bring more often updates with less content (which took nearly as much time as a content rich update).

And how many updates did they release in that 'faster schedule' thing? One?

Now, with the BETA, is the time SQUAD will look back and come fixing all mistakes along the path, so expect to see a huge ammount of rebalances, bugfixes and parts.

The mistake is that the game isn't even close to what it was supposed to be, is missing features that are pretty critical or were promised in some fashion, and they just decided to give up and skip straight to beta because they're going to dump all progress on this game probably by the end of next year, because it's been a management nightmare ever since 0.19.

Now that all of the systems are implemented, SQUAD can see the game as a whole, and will understand better the impacts of each feature on the gameplay.

So that means we'll never have reentry heating, no life support, no interactive IVAs, nothing useful to do on EVA except spam science, no resources, not even multiplayer, no parts to actually make space stations that do anything at all, nothing to do on planets except cover them in litter.

One example is that right when science was out we were really missing science being directed, or having engineering points or something like that.

Now that we also have money, such depht in science is not needed anymore, more complete systems like the ones we asked for would only lead to micromanagement.

Oh my god, are you serious? Are you for real? So because we have money, it's okay for the science system to be a complete insult to the entire field of astronomic science? There isn't even a way to analyze surface samples with a probe.

You sound like a total fanboy, because that was one of the most inane justifications I've ever heard anyone make. "It's okay that this sucks, because they added something else that sucks too, so it dilutes the suckiness!"

No man, it still sucks. If you laid out every single possible way to implement the science system, they clearly elected to go with the absolute laziest, easiest, cheapest, most insultingly stupid system of all possible solutions. The science system is so bad, we now have contracts handing out piles of science because there is literally nothing redeeming about the existing system. It isn't worth doing anything at all, because it's not fun, it lacks so much intellectual depth my cat would be bored of it, and there is absolutely no challenge whatsoever to any aspect of it.

I find it interesting at those who are complaining at hard mode being too hard. If it's not hard, what's the point? It should be 'squeak by on the edge of your seat doing everything right' hard.

If I turn on 'hard mode' in an FPS game, I expect to have access to less ammo and health, the AI might be much more aggressive and smarter, and maybe there might be more of them.

Games that use the 'hard mode' setting to turn enemies into massive bullet sponges and kill the player in one hit are frequently derided, because there's a big difference between 'hard' and 'stupid and frustrating'.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Frostiken

[foamyesque]

First of all, beta means 'feature complete' in development. Secondly, you people have been pounding this miserable excuse for years now, and graphics aside, I honestly can't think of any gameplay feature that Squad went back and revamped / improved.

The VAB got some changes.

[djnattyd]

What gets me are the whole "THIS ISN'T MY KSP ANYMORE!" rants, as if it was ever anything else but Harvesters dream made real.

At the end of everything, the only thing Squad owe us is a game where you build a rocket, stick a Kerbal in it and shoot it into the sky. We are entitled to nothing else. We certainly aren't entitled to say "I HATE THIS, CHANGE IT!"

Paraphrasing Brian Cox; "We all have a right to express our opinion, we don't have a right to have those opinions listened to."

[Captain Vlad]

I haven't seen anything...not one thing...in this thread that's anything more than a quibble. Quibbles that may be emotionally important to some people for personal reasons, but quibbles. Almost everyone on this forum has probably spent more hours on KSP than any other game on their Steam list (even if it's an imaginary Steam list), though, and I think that puts thing in perspective. This is a great game, and every addition has only made it better. There's probably tiny little things that we'd all like to see added, included or changed and quite a few people here probably couldn't agree which are "OMGHIGHPRIORITYTHISHASTOBEPUTIN" and which are just some icing are an otherwise tasty cake or would actually make it less enjoyable (reentry heat? I can take it or leave it).

I love that people are so passionate about the same game I am, but I gotta admit...some of these passionate people have a gift for rhetoric I've never seen the likes of, the patience of a lit stick of dynamite and the overall perspective of Nick Fury's left eye.

Guess it comes with the territory. Some people who love gush and compliment. Others freak when he or she combs their hair different.

[Frostiken]

What gets me are the whole "THIS ISN'T MY KSP ANYMORE!" rants, as if it was ever anything else but Harvesters dream made real.

At the end of everything, the only thing Squad owe us is a game where you build a rocket, stick a Kerbal in it and shoot it into the sky. We are entitled to nothing else. We certainly aren't entitled to say "I HATE THIS, CHANGE IT!"

I haven't seen anything...not one thing...in this thread that's anything more than a quibble. Quibbles that may be emotionally important to some people for personal reasons, but quibbles. Almost everyone on this forum has probably spent more hours on KSP than any other game on their Steam list (even if it's an imaginary Steam list), though, and I think that puts thing in perspective. This is a great game, and every addition has only made it better. There's probably tiny little things that we'd all like to see added, included or changed and quite a few people here probably couldn't agree which are "OMGHIGHPRIORITYTHISHASTOBEPUTIN" and which are just some icing are an otherwise tasty cake or would actually make it less enjoyable (reentry heat? I can take it or leave it).

I love that people are so passionate about the same game I am, but I gotta admit...some of these passionate people have a gift for rhetoric I've never seen the likes of, the patience of a lit stick of dynamite and the overall perspective of Nick Fury's left eye.

Guess it comes with the territory. Some people who love gush and compliment. Others freak when he or she combs their hair different.

The sheer size and scope and popularity of the mod scene and the kinds of mods that are popular strongly suggests that this game is childish and dumbed-down and nowhere even close to what people want. One of the most popular mods for this game implemented a resource system that Squad themselves cried was 'no fun'. Well obviously their players disagree.

Developers who make a game for sale who insist on making a game 'for themselves' are selfish, bad developers. If Harvester wanted to make 'his' game, he can make his own version of KSP and not sell it. People want to explore procedural asteroids, planets, and terrain. Harvester then gives up on this completely and comes up with some absolute bull excuse for why we'll never have procedural anything in this game.

I mean, god forbid you have satellites that do anything. Who'd have thought that in a space game where you put satellites into orbit, there should be a purpose for them! The fact that something like that wasn't in "Harvester's vision" makes me wonder if he had any business even being the creative director for this game. If anything it suggests that somewhere back around late 2012, he basically stopped caring about the game, because nothing added since then has really been put in with any passion. That was right around the time where development slowed to a crawl and it would take them five months to release an update adding two new parts and a UI that shows your fuel levels.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Frostiken