Not the KSP I love...

[djnattyd]

The sheer 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.

The most popular mods are Texture Replacer, EVE, B9, KW Rocketry and BD Armoury and apart from EVE, none of them add anything in the way of realism to the game. Real Solar System and RemoteTech aren't even in the top third when it comes to mod popularity, they're almost niche mods amongst the community.

[Frostiken]

FAR: 300k

Kethane: 211k

RemoteTech: 248k

B9: 138k

KW: 218k

Yeah FAR totally doesn't change the game and get rid of Squad's comically bad aerodynamics.

Oh and MechJeb has a ludicrous number of downloads. I'm sure that doesn't say anything about Harvester's stance that there's no useful information delivered to the player whatsoever. I'm honestly, actually surprised we even got a tonnage scale for the VAB. Seriously, even when I saw there was a weight limit, it would've been par for Squad to simply not give you a tonnage meter. I'm shocked Harvester even allowed that, considering in an interview he basically said that he thinks spending hours designing a ship, painstakingly flying it across the solar system, and then running out of fuel just short of your destination is 'fun'.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Frostiken

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

FAR: 300k

Kethane: 211k

RemoteTech: 248k

B9: 138k

KW: 218k

Yeah FAR totally doesn't change the game and get rid of Squad's comically bad aerodynamics.

Is this based on downloads? That doesn't mean anything. I re-download most mods if I want a new modded game

[Frostiken]

Is this based on downloads? That doesn't mean anything. I re-download most mods if I want a new modded game

Do you have a better metric?

The point remains, if the game was actually worthwhile to play stock, there wouldn't be as many mods that are as popular as they are. KSP is little more than a mod platform for an absolutely huge fraction of their customers, and it's basically been my stance for the last year that Squad should just stop updating the game and give up, because their pitiful updates are not worth the thousands of man-hours that are spent fixing mods after every release.

Note that that was also back around 0.2 to 0.25, and the updates released then were a total joke. 0.90 contains more content than probably all of those versions combined.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Frostiken

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Do you have a better metric?

Well, no. But there is no accurate way to find out the popularity.

That's like me asking you to tell me the time, using nothing but the letter A.

[foamyesque]

Is this based on downloads? That doesn't mean anything. I re-download most mods if I want a new modded game

How t'heck else would you measure popularity?

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

How t'heck else would you measure popularity?

No other solution, like I said. But can you tell me the time using the letter "A"

[djnattyd]

So... All of two realism mods then? One of which fixes what has already been revealed as being a placeholder item. Not exactly grounds for a mass revolt against the "dumbed-down" nature of the game.

You want realism, play Orbiter. KSP was never described as being a fully-fledged simulation. The devs left the door open for people to turn it into one if they themselves wished, but it is first and foremost a game with simulation aspects.

If Squad really wanted to, they could have gone "yep, we're done. Version 0.18 is now version 1.00. Thanks everyone." and left. They didn't, in fact they provided more than they originally set out to do.

Ranting about it because it doesn't match YOUR (or anybody else's) vision does nothing but make you sound self-entitled.

Being constructively critical and pointing put areas for improvement is entirely different to demanding that you have your own way.

[Motokid600]

You can't go by the number of downloads on a mod. And honestly I must've downloaded the popular mods dozens of times. Nor can you even go by the number of active users on this forum. All of us here are, what? 5% of the people who play the game?

Squad needs to make money above all else. Money is what got us to beta. Money is what will keep this game alive long after its release. I'm confident all the things in my post will occur in time. But Squad needs to do good on release. So ham it up. The video game scene is such crap these days that reviewers have become sharks. They'll pick the game apart.

Squads objective I imagine is to come out of the gate strong. And a considerable amount of work that doesn't pertain to the game itself must be done for that. So let them make the money they need to give us the game that we all want.

[Captain Vlad]

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.

Actually, it strongly suggests that the game's community is large enough and taken enough with the same to not only attract a large number of mod makers who are willing to devote time to KSP projects, but that many of them will see a large-scale use of their work. A healthy mod community is one of the best indicators of a game's popularity, and your statement is actually pretty much the only time I've heard anyone saying otherwise. That's very curious.

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually, it strongly suggests that the game's community is large enough and taken enough with the same to not only attract a large number of mod makers who are willing to devote time to KSP projects, but that many of them will see a large-scale use of their work. A healthy mod community is one of the best indicators of a game's popularity, and your statement is actually pretty much the only time I've heard anyone saying otherwise. That's very curious.

Indeed. It's also an indicator that people find the basic framework of KSP compelling enough to want to customize it to their liking. No one is going to create or install mods for a game that they don't like in the first place. The core game can't be all things to all people, but the mod community lets pretty much anyone make it into exactly what they want it to be.

[tetryds]

This is the only one worth quoting, and my answer applies to all of them.

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.

It does not mean "feature complete", but "scope complete", by the way.

0.90 is the first beta release, how can you expect them to have revmaped/improved a feature before getting to the point where they revmap/improve features?

That does not mean they didn't either, just to name a few:

-Eva

-Contracts

-Editors

-KSC

-Mk2 parts

-Mk3 parts

-Mk1 Cockpit

-Wings

-Several engine rebalances

-SAS

-Decouplers (added stack separators)

-Struts

-Wobbliness

-Antennas

-NavBall

There are many more that I did not list there, and several of the ones listed have way more to them.

Seeing that you came to the forums in 2011, you are only not seeing these changes because you don't want to.

Aerodynamic overhaul is not a rumor: http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/100106130289/beta-than-ever-the-future-of-ksp

And no, that does not mean we won't have those features, the same way as we got improvements and balances along the way, we can still get new features.

Being focused does not mean being dedicated.

I see so many people angry about the game, I just don't understand why do still play the game if it's so bad.

Yes, only one of the updates was meant to be "quicker", they learned with their mistake instantly instead of insisting on it.

About the hard mode, do you realize that all those FPS games you talk about are stupidly easy, and it's not KSP that is stupidly hard?

I believe that people go play on hard mode because it's good for their ego, not because they actually feel the game is not challengening enough on previous difficulty settings.

KSP is not an easy game, and hard mode is for few (very few), thus it's totally normal that people will fail on such difficulty setting.

From all that I have seen here on the forums, the people for whom the hard mode was created are not less than super happy with it, most agree that there are a few bits to be tweaked, but it's on the right direction.

There are sliders for a reason, if you find it too easy or too hard simply balance the game to fit your gameplay, don't expect a game like this to be automagically balanced for every player.

Also, you may notice that most games go easy/medium/hard/very hard, KSP goes easy/normal/moderate/hard, so the KSP "hard" you are talking about actually stands for "very hard"

And no, being "hard" does not mean being bad, I could just make a very big list of recent games that are super popular and insanelly hard, but I guess I don't need to mention anything other than Dwarf Fortress.

[Caelib]

It's almost as if some people don't even know that there is a Sandbox mode!

[Jean Deaux]

I agree the career mode missions are a son-of-a-gun to do, but I suppose I'm also taking a different view than most. To me, KSP beginner mode is Sandbox. Then you graduate up to the Science version to learn how to unlock the tree. When you're tired of all the easy tasks or missions you create for yourself and are ready for a "real" challenge, begin Career Mode! I think most would argue that the tech tree could use a tweak or two in the order of unlocks but there comes a time in KSP when you find yourself asking... "what next"? I think the new career mode answers this challenge quite nicely as you "really" have to think about what missions you take, where you spend your money, how you market your skills, it's no walk in the park! I think if you don't like career mode, then you're starting the game play in the wrong order. I think there is a draw to career mode because players are expecting a structured guide to space in the form of missions designed to teach the game mechanics as you complete them, progressing and advancing your skills and equipment. I don't think career mode was designed or intended to be played in that manner. I will say that I think the game will benefit "greatly" by adding a Tutorial Mode which would in fact have pre-set missions to be completed in a specific order with specific goals knowing full well what features will be available by controlling what can be unlocked in the tech tree and limiting your progression and activities by a very defined plan of advancement that introduces you to every aspect of game play.

Otherwise, don't knock the challenges because chances are there will be a time when you're looking for a good challenge!

[skyfire322]

Whoever said that is just silly.

If they don't like career mode, just play in sandbox or science mode! Squad has been working their butts off for us ever since the beginning, and hats off to them. I'm sure more plans are in the works, and the first BETA version was JUST released. Some people just need to calm down.

[Frank_G]

KSP .90 is really the best update we have got so far. It really takes KSP from a sandbox with traces of career to a full scale game with all a good career mode needs. Editor features and tools were changed to give the best possible experience. Difficulty settings were added to provide challenging gameplay for every type of player... And Squad really did lots of overtime to get all this to us in time. I am sure, all the other issues and little things will now get full attention and will diminish from update to update. I can only say thank you Squad.

[Vanamonde]

(Speaking as a player and not as a moderator: )

I honestly can't think of any gameplay feature that Squad went back and revamped / improved.

The science system has been tweaked in each version since it was introduced, almost all the rocket parts were discarded and replaced back in version .18 (I think it was), they recently replaced almost all the spaceplane parts, many of the worlds are on their second or more iterations of surface art, SAS has had 2 major overhauls and some tweaks in between, KSC itself has had 4 profoundly different incarnations, and that's just the stuff I can remember off the top of my head.

The mistake is that the game isn't even close to what it was supposed to be...

How can you know this? 1) It isn't finished. 2) You are not in the head of the game's creators, and can't compare it to their original vision.

And a lot of players are using mods because 1) a lot of people like to mod their games, 2) a thousand modders can produce more content than less than a dozen Squad employees, so the modders are indeed filling in unfinished aspects of this game that isn't finished yet.

There's a certain contingent that have been repeating these same complaint/accusations for the 2.5 years that I've been on this forum, and they're even less true now than they were the first time they were trotted out The continual insistence that the game isn't progressing has become farcical. Every update these people come on the forum and rant about how awful and inexcusably botched KSP is, but when the next update comes out, they're still here and still playing.

[AmpsterMan]

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.

I don't think the conclusion nescessarily stems from the premises; "The sheer size and scope and popluary of the mod scene and the kinds of mods that are popular" does NOT strongly suggest the game is childish. It MAY suggest that, just as it MAY suggest a whole host of other things.

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.

As a counter point to your above statement, he also could make a game for himself, his own, selfish, bad version of KSP AND sell it too. Likewise, bad purchasers could purchase his crappy product and complain about it not being to their liking; they could also make their OWN version of KSP as well. As for the reason for no procedural asteroids, planets, etc. I kinda agree with Harvester, and many others would agree too. It's NOT a bull excuse, it is a decision being made for the game. It may not be to your liking; that's fine, but don't think that just because something is not to your liking it means it is bad overall.

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.

I would again question the conclusion coming from your premises. How does one measure "passion"? Does Harvester have a right to "passion" over something that is not his? If so, what subset of KSP players should he be passionate about? The game slowing down is nothing more than what he mentioned was the case; as a project increases one starts getting into diminishing returns territory.

KSP is Harvester's Life's work until now. Whether this is something we care about ourselves is a completely different story; whether we like it or not is irrelevant to the points you are making. You have no proof of any of the claims you have made and yet come out with these conclusions that only barely follow the premises; as a rule of thumb, if a premise can support multiple conclusions, then you either need more premeses, or the conclusion does not nescessarily follow.

Edited December 19, 2014 by AmpsterMan

[Dreamixpl]

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?

No, I aggree with Frostiken: "Squad has a reputation for developing features halfway and leaving them." My plan is totally opposite to what Squad is doing. They add half-features and leave them. When You heard about enchancing IVA or EVA last time? Or adding IVA to Science Lab? How about bad aerodynamic model?

Squad always does this, example, atmospheric heat. They put it in major update, to hype players, and it doesn't do anything. Should it be just visuals?

New spaceplane parts: how about updating other parts, like mk1?

Why waste time on new Space center, when Squad could do biomes for something else than Kerbin and Mun. Again-plan to success: do something new for update to hype players and leave it for some time. Everyone says there will be time to balance and enchance everything, but have You heard when it will happen? Everyone also says KSP is beta/alpha. You can only say this about a game, that has date of release. KSP isn't beta, it's just updated in constant (or not) amounts of time.

[tetryds]

No, I aggree with Frostiken: "Squad has a reputation for developing features halfway and leaving them." My plan is totally opposite to what Squad is doing. They add half-features and leave them. When You heard about enchancing IVA or EVA last time? Or adding IVA to Science Lab? How about bad aerodynamic model?

Squad always does this, example, atmospheric heat. They put it in major update, to hype players, and it doesn't do anything. Should it be just visuals?

New spaceplane parts: how about updating other parts, like mk1?

Why waste time on new Space center, when Squad could do biomes for something else than Kerbin and Mun. Again-plan to success: do something new for update to hype players and leave it for some time. Everyone says there will be time to balance and enchance everything, but have You heard when it will happen? Everyone also says KSP is beta/alpha. You can only say this about a game, that has date of release. KSP isn't beta, it's just updated in constant (or not) amounts of time.

I guess you did not really read the release notes

The Mk1 Cockpit was updated on 0.25, btw.

Edited December 19, 2014 by tetryds

[technicalfool]

Why waste time on new Space center, when Squad could do biomes for something else than Kerbin and Mun.

You might want to check the content of 0.90. It's quite the update.

[Dreamixpl]

You might want to check the content of 0.90. It's quite the update.

I guess you did not really read the release notes The Mk1 Cockpit was updated on 0.25, btw.

Yeah, I didn't read it, sorry. I'm still playing my realism-modded game on 0.25, and I don't have much time, as it's close to christmas, but You get the idea.

[SkyRender]

My own two cents on the matter: we are all still effectively testers for the game as it stands. It's our responsibility to point out where we see imbalances, gameplay problems, bugs, glitches, and other issues that could potentially harm the product's appeal to those who are waiting for the 1.0 release. While our means of addressing the problems currently in the game could occasionally use a bit of work, the fact of the matter is that we are giving the developers something useful to go off of when we complain that it's "too hard" or "more tedious" or "unbalanced". It alerts them to where there are tweaks to be made, adjustments to be considered, and effort to be focused in order to ensure that the final product is solid.

Now I personally feel that the current building prices are (from testing, mind you) around about 2 times too high as it stands. I also feel that building upgrade prices should have their own slider, as the current slider used for it does not have any obvious relationship to building upgrade prices at all. Admittedly my initial reaction to this was a bit hostile, but I have since cooled down and explained this in a more reasoned manner, as well as made suggestions on how to address this problem. You should really not be too judgmental of someone when they complain or bring up issues, as they aren't doing it because they hate KSP; just the opposite. They're doing it because they want to see KSP succeed.

Taking issue with people trolling, of course, is a completely different matter. But it's also important to recognize the difference between that and just airing grievances.

[tetryds]

Yeah, I didn't read it, sorry. I'm still playing my realism-modded game on 0.25, and I don't have much time, as it's close to christmas, but You get the idea.

Not really, because everything you said there is what SQUAD is planning on doing now on the BETA phase, as far as we are all concerned.

[Tw1]

I do think this sort of criticism does have a place- many people bought into KSP because of the impression they got of what it might be. There is nothing wrong with expressing disappointment, as long as it's done well, and without a "You must do this because how dare you not!" sort of attitude.

For example, I got into KSP when it was just sandbox. The world was open, there were planets to go to, and you got design what you'd use to get there, and got to make plans of your own. There wasn't a lot to do on the planets, but we could use our imagination, but detailed exploration would be coming later right? Going to planets, and finding a wealth of things to examine, discover and experience could have been its own reward. That's all a computer game ever offers really. An experience.

Then career mode, and science comes along, revealing itself as a point scoring mechanism, handled with a single, brief click. Contracts comes along, showing potential, but being the only way to earn money, makes the game a passive experience-. You follow the game, doing the tasks needed to continue.

And then there's the tech tree and building upgrades- obvious goals, as that's what the points ernt by your activity goes into. But once that's done, the game seems without aims. Plus, unlocking stuff is not really what a space program's focus should be.It's backwards. We go to the mun to get better engines. Really, you should be getting better parts to go to the mun.

Career works as a game. It's moderately enjoyable, don't get me wrong. But it's rather ordinary.

KSP looked like it could offer a much bigger space experience, and career hasn't really delivered that. Hence, disappointment.

I'd happily abandon the career, and only play of sandbox, if they'd add a detailed exploration/science system.