Disappointed with Squad's development paradigm

[Dreamixpl]

-things-

But it looks like Squad wants their game to cover very large player base:

-casual players can just fly to moon in their 30 minutes break from work, without understanding orbital mechanics, basically just let autopilot do the work, with player thinking they know how it worked

-semi-hardcore players, that launch their kerosene-liquid oxygen fueled rocket beasts, with radio communication satellites onto geosynchronous orbits, with no place or time for faults, calculating d/v, etc. (thats possible with mods)

But thats not going to work, either make the game designed for casual players, with autopilot and simplified "everything" or make the Space Program part of the game in KSP, with advanced mechanics like d/v readouts in VAB, advanced drag model, so flying pancakes are not possible, and reentry heat, etc.

Ya know what I think KSP haters should do? PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME, AND HAVE NO INVOLVEMENT IN THIS ONE. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. Mods, I want you to close the thread because of this. And haters, just stay away.

Oh, i can tell so much about you, don't ever post things like this again, playing a different game won't solve anything, and i never seen any haters on KSP forums.

[razark]

either make the game designed for casual players, with autopilot and simplified "everything" or make the Space Program part of the game in KSP, with advanced mechanics like d/v readouts in VAB, advanced drag model, so flying pancakes are not possible, and reentry heat, etc.

Or aim the game at the middle ground between the two, and let modders have access so the two extremes can be appeased?

[Dreamixpl]

Or aim the game at the middle ground between the two, and let modders have access so the two extremes can be appeased?

Not really, aiming at the middle ground never works and relying on mods is just bad.

KSP still has capabilities (don't know if its right word) for being one of two. It could became casual learning game, with good tutorial, and kerbals that explain what you have done good or bad. Or KSP could became next Orbiter, but ten times better, with 1:1 earth, realistic looking rockets, and worrying if 10 spare d/v is enough for your rocket.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Not really, aiming at the middle ground never works and relying on mods is just bad.

KSP still has capabilities (don't know if its right word) for being one of two. It could became casual learning game, with good tutorial, and kerbals that explain what you have done good or bad. Or KSP could became next Orbiter, but ten times better, with 1:1 earth, realistic looking rockets, and worrying if 10 spare d/v is enough for your rocket.

If it were one of the two, I'd prefer it to become the former. There is far less demand for latter, and anyone sufficiently dedicated to it can achieve any degree of it with mods.

However, aiming for a good middle ground is a better choice, as I see it. Not everybody wants to concern themselves with mods, therefore having a base game that is easy enough to pick up, yet has gameplay elements and options that require the player to exercise different levels of skill and knowledge, is a much better long-term choice. The career mode, such as it is, is pretty much perfectly aimed in that direction. The game limits your options greatly from the outset, at the same time not boring you with having to launch faceless probes and juggling maintenance and other running costs in your head. This allows a starting player to peek into a simplified game, start playing, and progress forward naturally as his/her skill improves, unlocking different functions and abilities gradually, slowly removing restrictions to allow them to become comfortable within the bounds they've access to before going further.

A hardcore sim just won't be nearly as popular, and not nearly as useful as a teaching tool. A casual game will lack functionality, and any advanced realism features will have to be extensive mods, preventing advanced players from getting adequate tech support and encountering more problems than normal in the first place. A balanced mix of both would allow both teaching more advanced concepts to casual players as they reach them through Career, and mean the creation of unified systems for those advanced concepts, so that any mods bringing the game closer to 'hardcore' will build upon code already within the game, meaning less cross-mod interference and a better experience for everybody.

[Commander Jebidiah]

So Squad want KSP to be very easy, not complex, fun game? Or some players are (sorry for this) too stupid to do "complex" things like putting right parts in right places, and remembering that LFO is made out of O2 and H2? This could lead to good mechanics: "take uranium from eve, so you can research RTG's" or "finally make functional ground bases that have other purpose that to grind science".Why docking was added, many players have problem with it, it's so complex! KSP should be educational/simulator game, where orbital mechanics can be learn and never forgetted, but no, let's add autopilot and manevuer assistance.

So this means we can't have any complaints, because Squad can leave us? Why you are even posting this, KSP forum can be shut down every second. But really, don't tell we should praise and be thankfull to Squad for making KSP, we all just want it to be better.

I'm sure everyone who said anything about KSP in this thread want it to be better, and not have a refund or say its just bad. Everyone want KSP to be more enjoyable and to ride it the next 6,324 times, and say "KSP is so great now, but it had dark times, where it was bad".

I never said you have to praise them, I said you should be happy they still develop the game.

If they wanted to they could just be like EA and make you pay for every update.

[DSKY]

Squad chose to build their game using the Unity engine, therefore Squad is responsible for how its performance affects their game. Period. Additionally, Squad actively promotes modding and touts it to the point of having "Modding Mondays" on their website. They cannot have their cake and eat it too - if they boast of mods, then they must make a reasonable effort to support them, or they will frustrate many people. Realistically they cannot prevent mods from conflicting with one another or the game itself. However, the game can and should do a better job of managing memory. Too many mods loaded? Well then how about an error message, instead of just letting the game sail on into a crash or a freeze?

- - - Updated - - -

How do mods have ANY effect on the development decisions of Squad?

The official KSP website contains the following:

1) A link to these forums, a number of which are dedicated to mods and their development.

2) A link to Mods @ Curse, a hub for distribution of KSP mods.

3) "Modding Mondays" on their blog, in which they highlight various mods.

Squad designs their game to be moddable, advertises it as such, and promotes and assists modders in developing their mods. That's not a legal requirement, they CHOSE to do so. If they use a game engine that is incapable of handling a reasonable number of mods, or fail to incorporate adequate memory management and/or error checking to limit the number of mods that are in use, then they are going to frustrate the very gamers they intended to attract. There's no legal requirement for them to do so - they will simply lose customers who enjoy what is otherwise a magnificent game, and the mounting internet noise about the game's shortcomings (Unity, 64 bit, memory management) will deter potential customers.

[whiterafter]

1. You don't buy a game for the mods.

2. Squad can do whatever they want. I don't even see why they need to respond to these conflicts. If someone at SQUAD wants to scrap all the planets but Kerbin that's their choice.

We need to stop assuming that any developers are in debt to make a perfect game, and they shouldn't have to tune it to your personal game choices like installing 20 mods.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no legal requirement for them to do so - they will simply lose customers who enjoy what is otherwise a magnificent game, and the mounting internet noise about the game's shortcomings (Unity, 64 bit, memory management) will deter potential customers.

Many of us 'potential customers' loved KSP for what it was and not a heavily modded contraption. SQUAD is making a good decision in aiming for the 99% of people who don't care about tiny details and just want to have fun, over the 1% who demand to play the most realistic games invented.

[Tuareg]

1. You don't buy a game for the mods.

2. Squad can do whatever they want. I don't even see why they need to respond to these conflicts. If someone at SQUAD wants to scrap all the planets but Kerbin that's their choice.

We need to stop assuming that any developers are in debt to make a perfect game, and they shouldn't have to tune it to your personal game choices like installing 20 mods.

- - - Updated - - -

Many of us 'potential customers' loved KSP for what it was and not a heavily modded contraption. SQUAD is making a good decision in aiming for the 99% of people who don't care about tiny details and just want to have fun, over the 1% who demand to play the most realistic games invented.

i see u like to talk bs grat

do you know how businesses work yeah? you start doing something, you start selling it, then if you make your early buyers happy you can sell more and if you will have an other project you will have early buyers again. if you do crap and make your early buyers fools everybody will know it and u suck. now i guess as squad is an amateur garageteam they dont care about the future however there is a great money in the game industry. there is a good example egosoft, they have ruined their future as developers, they were talking the exact same crap you do. they told they cant rely on their few thousands of fans, they have to streamline things and aim a bigger public. there was 30000 preorder on their last game, today nobody plays but a few hundred and the worst is that nobody is buying it, not even at halfprice... yeah, you are right, squad might has no obligations, we were the stupid to buy assuming it will be a proper game, but there is only one way to stay in the business, please ur fans... ohhh, and dont make up numbers saying 99% vs 1%. it can easily be the opposite way

[whiterafter]

I hardly consider that it would be 99-1 in favor of all realism.

[SorryDave]

I agree with the OP, he is mad.

[Slam_Jones]

OP:

"When I push the game and my rig to the very limits, the performance drops!"

No duh

Edited January 19, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[klgraham1013]

anywho, play with less mods. the stock game is great

Statement is invalid.

If it wasn't for mods, I probably wouldn't still be playing.

[Captain Sierra]

Statement is invalid.

If it wasn't for mods, I probably wouldn't still be playing.

difference of opinion does not invalidate someone's statement.

[Tuareg]

difference of opinion does not invalidate someone's statement.

it does very much if it is "statement". if he would say "in my opinion the stock game is great and i enjoy it", its alright, my opinion wouldnt invalidate it, if he say the poo is edible, well, my opposing opinion WILL invalidate it and reduce it as his personal opinion. the stock game is unplayable for most, thats why the big gamechanging mods have huge numbers in their download stats.

[Unknow0059]

Use Active Texture management. And if that doesn't help, then i don't know, use less mods?

[Captain Sierra]

the stock game is unplayable for most,

-citation needed-

I'm happily playing a stock install right now while my modded one is having issues. I fail to find a way to counter this point because I cannot find any logic to counter. What numbers are you basing such a strong assertion off of?

Please, your opinion is not the law. Plenty of people find the stock game very much enjoyable, including players like myself who mod the game beyond what ATM, DDSLoader, and OpenGL can run on a 32 bit install. The stock game is more well rounded than ever and if you cannot find enjoyment in the stock game, that is your right. It is not your right to state that such is true for a vast majority of the playerbase at large.

[r4pt0r]

I too love stock. .90 is my first modded version because I wanted something different from restarting every update and doing the same stuff. once updates stop and I can keep a permanent save for many months, I'll happily keep it stock, especially if they do good on the aero make-over.

Also those "huge numbers in the download stats" mean nothing if we cant reference them against total sales. they might only be 5%.

[Vanamonde]

It's getting kind of nasty and personal in here, folks. How about instead of "You're wrong because..." we all just post "My opinion is that... "

[Crimson Sunrise]

My opinion:

You can stay disappointed till the cows come home. Nothing will change as always. SQUAD still will make the game they want to make and you'll have to play it liking it or not.

[sal_vager]

Squad has of course always planned on making the game they wanted to make from the beginning, that's how games are made, though there's nothing to stop you from making the game you want to play

[Crimson Sunrise]

Squad has of course always planned on making the game they wanted to make from the beginning, that's how games are made, though there's nothing to stop you from making the game you want to play

Thanks for proving me that this section of the forums is useless.

[sal_vager]

That is of course your opinion, not readily supported by facts.

Lets see, multiplayer was a member suggestion, so was having another moon for Kerbin, and flags too.

I think that's enough examples

[Crimson Sunrise]

That is of course your opinion, not readily supported by facts.

Lets see, multiplayer was a member suggestion, so was having another moon for Kerbin, and flags too.

I think that's enough examples

Is multiplayer implemented in the game already? No. Multiplayer was something that, according to my research, was even prohibited to be asked until someone made a mod that had a somewhat functional multiplayer mode. Then SQUAD started talking about implementing multiplayer. Debunked.

I won't comment on Minmus, since I couldn't find data about it(and since the forums were deleted a couple times, there's no way to check if that's true or not). Benefit of the doub there, though I'm sure it wasn't a suggestion.

Flags...Could be a suggestion. Once again, lack of empirical proof due to forum wiping.

Which, due to lack of empirical proof, can't be confirmed. Or they could have been planned to be on the game already and someone just happened to suggest it by coincidence.

Otherwise, the thread asking the use of the suggestions forum wouldn't even exist in the first place, would it?

Edited January 20, 2015 by Crimson Sunrise

[sal_vager]

Your research is lacking, multiplayer was placed on the list due to the repetitive nature of the requests, now it's in the works due in part to player requests, that is the very definition of a suggestion that is being implemented in the game.

Let's see what else, aircraft parts, Steam, Z for full throttle, all player ideas originally

[vexx32]

There are records of almost everything that occurred on the forum all the way back to the very first public release. There are a couple of months missing from the most catastrophic crash, but apart from that pretty much everything is in the archives.

Seeing as I was actually around before Minmus became a thing, I can indeed confirm that it was a member's suggestion. It wasn't even posted in a [suggestion] thread, it was just something a member tossed around offhand, and HarvesteR picked up on it and decided it was a good idea. The forums were a lot smaller back then, the devs frequently around.

Multiplayer was prohibited to be asked (and still is) because people would simply go around in circles with the same arguments over and over again with no solutions being apparent, and often the threads turned into personal vendettas against various users. They were never constructive and always divisive and a waste of everyone's time, so the mod team made them taboo for the sake of everyone's sanity. There's no point discussing a feature if the only result is name calling and personal attacks.

And just because some people aren't sufficiently omnipotent to see the extent to which the Suggestions forum influences game development doesn't mean it's irrelevant and useless. Yes, as you might expect, regular members who have zero connection to Squad beyond having bought a product they sell will not be privy to the inner workings of their development process. It's the same way pretty much every company on the planet operates. In the past, Squad did very much try to be open about what was planned, but after the community proved it was unable to tolerate disappointments (e.g., some features having to be shelved simply because placing too much focus on them would hinder the rest of the game's development to a ludicrous degree) by causing no end of trouble when those inevitably came to pass they were more or less forced to keep things quieter.