Disappointed with Squad's development paradigm

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Yadda yadda yadda

Not that it is supposed to be "realistic" (I mean, come on, if you want realism go play with real rockets.), but it definitely does more than say

Player_SpeedY += Gravity;

With the amount of space KSP takes up, I think it may just be

Player_Speed_Y = Player_Speed_Y + Gravity

[Starwhip]

Well, yes, but KSP uses a REALLY FUNKY coordinate system.

So basically it is SpeedY+gravity. Which way Y is, however...

Again, there's still the implications of engines, wings, drag, and orbital mechanics.

[SignalCorps]

I'm playing in x64 Win7 Pro. Seems to work pretty good for me. Steep learning curve, but I'm getting better. (Actually got to the mun today. But I ran out of monopro and got a little freaky with the SAS and the lander crashed stranding poor Jeb on the Mun )

So far I've been happy with it. Had a few wonky physics issues at 3 and 4x physics speed. And been having some issues with wobbly rockets if they get too tall with stuff you'd think would be stable, but over all, it's an awesome game.

[Starwhip]

I'm playing in x64 Win7 Pro. Seems to work pretty good for me. Steep learning curve, but I'm getting better. (Actually got to the mun today. But I ran out of monopro and got a little freaky with the SAS and the lander crashed stranding poor Jeb on the Mun )

So far I've been happy with it. Had a few wonky physics issues at 3 and 4x physics speed. And been having some issues with wobbly rockets if they get too tall with stuff you'd think would be stable, but over all, it's an awesome game.

See! Some of us still respect the game for what it is.

A lot of what I see is people ranting about how "this could be better" or "SQUAD plz fix this" and "this needs to be removed".

Is it your game?

No.

SQUAD doesn't have to listen to us at all. Be glad that they are at least aware of the situation, and are (Most likely) trying to fix anything that poses a serious problem to gameplay.

[/rant]

Edited January 21, 2015 by Starwhip
Whoo, got that out of my system! :)

[Tuareg]

I'm surprised they chose UNITY in the first place... Does anyone here know how that came about? It seems there are other more suitable engines for a game such as this.

The amount of programming that must have been required to get this project operating on that platform! A custom engine may have been less work?

Considering the UNITY platform seems to be the cause of the greatest amount of grief concerning KSP, regarding performance especially.

I'm definitely not disappointed with SQUAD, I love this game and I have nothing except exploding thumbs-ups for them. I do think they shot themselves in the foot slightly with UNITY.

first, unity is probably the only one doesnt restrict mapsize unlike others, second, unity is simple and have probably the most active community because of the near fully functional free version, third, probably the cheapest commercial engine.

it actually requires very little programming to make things working, it would need more to make it work properly... a custom engine is far far far over squads abilities.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Tuareg

[Sean Mirrsen]

first, unity is probably the only one doesnt restrict mapsize unlike others, second, unity is simple and have probably the most active community because of the near fully functional free version, third, probably the cheapest commercial engine.

it actually requires very little programming to make things working, it would need more to make it work properly... a custom engine is far far far over squads abilities.

Not to mention that there weren't very many good alternatives back when the game was started. If they had chosen XNA, the game would be halfway to the scrap bin about now. And if they wrote their own engine, we'd still be at v0.18 - engine-writing is not a simple task.

Unity is really the most balanced cost-for-quality engine choice nowadays, I think.

[DSKY]

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

How do you know what _I_ buy? In this case, I didn't buy KSP for the mods, but mods are the reason I continued to play beyond the first month or so.

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.

You're absolutely right on all counts. They can do whatever they want, they don't need to reply, they don't need to fix anything. My point was (and you quoted it, perhaps without comprehending it), there are consequances to those decisions. Loss of existing users , bad PR, and potential loss of future sales among them. Their fate is entirely in their hands, which is why I strongly encourage them to address some of these issues. Making excuses on Squad's behalf is merely complementing the Emperor on his new clothes.

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.

I made no such assumptions, nor did I suggest, as you disingenuously state, that they should tune it to _my_ liking. I merely point out that if they advertise a modded game, then fail to deliver a game that will handle mods, there will inevitably be consequences.

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 certainly loved the version of KSP that I first started playing, but I would not have continued to play without some of the wonderful mods that are available. I still love KSP, as far as anyone can "love" software. I would rate it as the single most entertaining piece of software I have used in the nearly 40 years of using computers. I want to see KSP and Squad succeed. I'm not sure where you're going with your statement about Squad's "decision in aiming for the 99%" and the part about "the most realistic games invented". I assume you're attempting to further divert from the point I was trying to make, which had nothing to do with realism. My point ultimately boils down to: consumers expect a game to perform as advertised, which in this case includes mods. If it does not live up to expectations, then there will be consequnces in the market.

I think we all agree that KSP is a fantastic game, and would like to see it thrive. Apologizing for weaknesses, or ignoring problems does nothing to help achieve that common goal. Constructively pointing out flaws or opportunities for improvement CAN halp, if Squad is willing and able to listen.

[Clockwork13]

I have the same mod fetish and when i used to play minecraft.

I have fun on the stock game for a while, but then cant take it anymore and literally start downloading every mod i see that adds new content until the point where KSP cant take it and crashes, then i start removing the mods which i like the least until i can have an equal balance of lag and mods