Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[andrew2343]

So here we are moving to 1.0.. however, we still dont have IVAS on the MK3 plane cockpit and the MK2 and MK3 passenger cabins... maybe its just me nitpicking, but going to 1.0 means that the game should be in a finished state, not missing stuff. i love to use IVA since it really gives some Immersion. also, IVA on chairs would be nice.. toughts on this issue?

[Broax]

I've seen a lot of comments (like mine) stating the game as feeling unfinished. And some address it well... It's the feel for so many mods. For me the game simply isn't enjoyable without some mods.

For example:

- Deadly Reentry: I still can't understand why this isn't stock. The impact on difficulty is negligible and the contribution it makes for challenge, realism and fun is huge;

- Kerbal Engineer: If I kept myself within Kerbin's SOI I could manage without it but for me it's unthinkable to try a planet transfer without at least KE. Not to mention building rockets would be dull without a real-time dV output;

- Kerbal Attachment System: EVA is a gimmick without this mod. It gives depth, purpose and fun to going on an EVA;

- Station Science: Again, gives further depth to the game by giving variety to space stations and more ways to collect science;

- TAC Life Support: This gives extra depth on planing longer missions;

- Remote Tech: This also gives extra depth on planing longer missions;

Honorable mention for: Docking Port Alignment Indicator and NavUtilities as Without them I'd spend most of the time spamming F9 while trying to land;

In my opinion (this is personal ofc), these mods expand the very basic list of features the game is lacking. DR, TAC LS, RT wouldn't even necessarily need to be integrated as-is. They could be tweaked (for example: instead of food, oxygen and water there could just be a "life support" resource) to conform with Squad's vision of the game and be toggled in the difficulty options.

DR, KE and KAS are mods that I can't imagine the game without. EVA has no depth at all. The only thing engineers can do is fix flat tires and solar panels if I'm not mistaken... How this can be considered a completed feature is beyond me. And the amount of trial and error required for inexperienced players to do anything meaningful would be daunting.

And I feel I have to say this again... When I list a couple of mods I don't mean they all have to be included as they currently exist. I just mean the general features provided by them (simple life support (just one resource), simple differences between antennas (just range and ignore block, shape, delay, etc), simple EVA activities (other then "situation report", plant flag and collect sample), etc) make the vanilla game feel "complete". Without them the game feels incomplete.

And I play in a heavily modded game (I won't even talk about the lack of a proper win64 version because I know it's not ) so I have plenty of other mods. I don't need mods to enjoy the game. Most of them I can easily live without. It's just that these make the game feel complete as it still lacks a lot of features.

Going gold without some (or all) of these features means declaring a unfinished and unpolished game as "complete" which, as much as I love KSP, it isn't.

I know there's still a new update and maybe by then the game will be fully polished and balanced and tweaked. I hope that's the case...

[DocMoriarty]

I agree that IVA's on all Kerbal containers including the lab would be really nice.

[Yellowburn10]

The priority I think should be the cockpits, then the crew cabins. I say it plural because the inline mk1 cockpit needs IVA too.

[Jovus]

A small disagreement here, which I bring forward because this was put forward to be a discussion.

But first, let's clear the air and lay down the ground rules of where I'm standing.

You should know that I joined this lovely community and got this awesome game shortly after the release of 0.23.5, so I'm relatively new around here. If that makes me less authoritative, well, I'm at a disadvantage.

I also largely agree with the broad sentiment of the first post, which I take to be (so you can see what I'm agreeing with), "Squad has created a masterpiece of a game that has oodles more content than we have any real reason to expect, especially when compared to other games. The game as it is right now, along with the promises made for the 1.0 release, will be a fully featured game when it's released." I freely recognize (and applaud) that Squad has gone above and beyond in making KSP one of the best games there is and single-handedly setting the bar for the genre. (Possibly even creating the genre.)

My concern over the 1.0 release has very little to do with wanting more features. Oh, sure, I'd love a few more things - like reentry heat, life support, an extra planet, etc. - but I recognize that, as it is now, I have no real right to expect those things, and a company must necessarily cut a product at some point. They have to say, "All right, this is it - from here on out all new releases are for support; this is the 'final' product," or they'll never get it out the door. That's one of two ways for software to die.

My concern is over the other way for software to die: being released to a bad reception. I want to hold the 1.0 release off just a wee bit longer - not to shoehorn in more content, but precisely because they are going to shoehorn in more content. 1.0 is a monster of a release. It's going to have a lot of bugs, and there's no telling how many bugs there will be without fairly extensive testing; testing that, I can tell you as a former QAer for medical software, just plain won't be extensive enough due to the nature of the development cycle. (Not Squad's development cycle, which I know nothing specific about. But truly new features like this - especially this large - do best if they get a round or two of 'beta testing' - that is, give the software to real users and ask them for detailed and specific feedback. And Squad has a whole community here, many of whom I'm sure would be willing to give that feedback.)

If Squad releases a game that has enough of any: bugs, strange workflows, poorly written tutorials, features that feel 'incomplete' especially to the uninitiated, arcane or difficult controls, poorly explained controls, glitches, visual 'holes' (like missing IVAs), poor user feedback, lack of user feedback, misleading user feedback, or gross instability (whether ultimately their fault or not), then chances are good the game will get a bad reception. This is difficult to evaluate by current reviews, for two reasons: one, because reviewers are probably more favorable to KSP while it's in early access due to the understanding that it's not complete, and two, because reviewers aren't KSP's target audience. They're a lossy metric.

And if KSP pans, Squad quite likely will drop the project. (They are, after all, in this to make money. I couldn't blame them in the least for this reaction.) And I love KSP. Furthermore, I want other people, who aren't yet in this community, to love KSP, rather than be turned off by any of the problems I mentioned above. Sure, if Squad fumbles and drops KSP, it's no skin off my nose personally - I'll still have the final release version of their software, and whatever mods I need to make it what I want it to be. But I want Squad to succeed, because I want them to be rewarded for this awesome thing they have done.

[klgraham1013]

We have already had an official response. Here is a link to Maxmaps tweets and comments earlier in this thread.

Thanks. I don't really use twitter. I suppose all my points still stand. Releasing 1.0 into the general public means something very specific. If the game doesn't live up to exceptions of the general populous, Squad must accept the consequences. I only want the best for KSP. It seems that sentiment is shared within this thread. Squad should feel proud that they've created something that's built such a loyal and passionate following.

[Superfluous J]

calling the next version 1.0, and not having multiplayer ready is one of the reasons the Master Cheif Collection got slammed by reviewers. dont call it 1.0 untill its done. 1.0.1 and so on can be minor fixes, but if the game is not finished when it hits official review outlets, that will not bode well.

Halo without Multiplayer is like Madden without a football. KSP without Multiplayer is ... KSP. I don't think it'll matter all that much if they follow the same plan with Multiplayer that they've had since they announced it would be in the game.

[TheFactory]

What I don't understand is if there is no managerial or financial pressure to "release" the game and there are more things SQUAD plan to add as well as bugs to fix then why release?

It just seems to be an arbitrary reason to release it because it is "scope complete". There are still way too many bugs, the contracts are a bit dull and feel unfinished, nothing to do on EVA, some of the cockpits have no IVA.... Bla bla bla

Why waste a big release if you want to add more things? I don't see why 6 months more would make any difference, apart from better reviews from critics.

As it is a lot of new players will pick the game up and play a few hours before leaving it alone, which for the sake of waiting a few more months is absurd.

I don't care if SQUAD release the game now or never, I have my copy and I will just wait until it's not being developed anymore, add the mods I think the game should have and then carry on playing; I just feel sad for the Devs that they couldn't just wait a little longer, I think they will look back on it as a mistake.

[Motokid600]

Yea of all the things discussed in this thread multiplayer is the last things KSP needs.

[Fiddlestyx]

IVAs do need to be complete before 1.0 IMHO.

[Renegrade]

- Kerbal Attachment System: EVA is a gimmick without this mod. It gives depth, purpose and fun to going on an EVA;

I agree with many of your points, but I think this one stands out the most. I absolutely and totally support this position - EVA is a joke without KAS.

KAS also adds a lot to orbital and surface construction, even if it's not some big flashy parts mod.

When Squad was being coy about what mod they were adding when they added SP+, I was actually hoping that the mod in question was KAS.

Halo without Multiplayer is like Madden without a football. KSP without Multiplayer is ... KSP. I don't think it'll matter all that much if they follow the same plan with Multiplayer that they've had since they announced it would be in the game.

Eh, I like singleplayer Halo. Well, the first one, anyhow (laggy LoD and absolute abuse of bump mapping kinda ruined the rest of the series for me). Battlefield without Multiplayer is like Madden without (American) football~

[Robotengineer]

We have already had an official response. Here is a link to Maxmaps tweets and comments earlier in this thread.

I meant today. This thread has exploded over the weekend and they haven't addressed a lot of the issues that have been brought up. I wonder if they intended to drop this bombshell on a friday night...

[ShadowZone]

I absolutely agree. I did a SSTO option with docking with the B9 HL cockpit IVA including RPM. Now that was an experience!

IVA is a must for 1.0

[Renegrade]

What about the Mk1 inline? Don't forget that! It hasn't had an IVA (outside of mods) since it was introduced!

Anyhow, it seems Squad's ideas of 1.0 is my idea of 0.27 so....

[basic.syntax]

The Mk3 IVA was delayed, that's why the Mk3 cockpit has a funny note in its description. I fully expect to see it in 1.0

While it "would be nice" to have an IVA anywhere a Kerbal can go in a ship, its a lot of art work to do for something I would smile at briefly, and then go back out into space, where the action is.

From the .90 "Beta than Ever" FAQ:

New IVAs?

Unfortunately not yet. Creating IVAs is a very time intensive process, and considering our developmental priorities over the past few updates, we just haven’t had enough time to give them the proper focus that they deserve. We know you want them and we intend on getting them in during a future update.

[TheFactory]

I meant today. This thread has exploded over the weekend and they haven't addressed a lot of the issues that have been brought up. I wonder if they intended to drop this bombshell on a friday night...

Quite possibly, they are not doing themselves any favours though are they!?

I think they have got to respond, 75% of the community (according to this poll) are not with them - that's a straw poll of how the outside world will judge them.

[bdito]

Quite possibly, they are not doing themselves any favours though are they!?

I think they have got to respond, 75% of the community (according to this poll) are not with them - that's a straw poll of how the outside world will judge them.

They already did. What else is there to say? They believe the number of bugs will be minimal and the release will be great.

We simply are not comfortable being an Early Access game anymore. If the game at 1.0 is truly at a state where bugs and balance issues outshine the gameplay to the point that critics slam us, then so be it. Frankly, I believe we can do better than that, and I will do my best to deliver on that promise.

We're all speculating. We have to see the actual release before we can truly judge them on it.

Edited January 26, 2015 by bdito

[Robotengineer]

They already did. What else is there to say? They believe the number of bugs will be minimal and the release will be great.

That was 2 days ago, while it is completely possible they had already thought of all the things the community has brought up over the past 2 days, it would be nice to know that they had.

[Tiberion]

(Edit, thispost was originally a reply to another thread and this reply which was merged into the main thread

I on the other hand have been here a very long time and have personally been involved with watching the game develop as a tester for a long time as well. I also disagree with the notion to "just let it happen"

The 1.0 release is the one that will be judged forever. It'll be the one that gets reviewed, and 10 years from now when you search for "KSP reviews" you will find the articles about version 1.0, when KSP emerged from Early Access. Those reviews will comprise the metacritic review score.

You get ONE chance to release your game. A few publications might come back and review a later major patch or an expansion release, but otherwise games don't shake the rep they earn when they are released. KSP Will be no different, and a lot of the quirks people overlook in an Alpha game will not be accepted in a "finished" product.

Nevermind what they owe the players. They owe it to THEMSELVES to make some polish passes on the game before crossing the finish line. Even if develop will continue for the foreseeable future, this declaration will have lasting effects and it would be a shame to squander so much work at the 11th hour.

As for what I think needs to be addressed in the polish passes, you can read my post here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108318-Do-you-feel-KSP-is-ready-for-1-0?p=1692325&viewfull=1#post1692325

(Which is where this post should have been )

Edited January 26, 2015 by Tiberion

[darqen27]

EDIT: *Removing foot from mouth*

I didn't read anything in the thread prior to posting.

Apology's

Justin

Edited January 26, 2015 by darqen27
Removed some verbiage.

[klgraham1013]

I say after quite a few years development that you have all gotten what you paid for, and you need to stop complaining about the game you have now. I would gladly give squad another 14.99 now, plus the money already given, they have worked tirelessly on this game. I left @ .19 and am now back @ .9 and I have to say there is alot of content added, there are many other games that actually release without .... for content. be glad squad isnt one of them. Now stop acting all entitled.

Justin

Wow. I feel like the impression I'm getting from this thread and the impression you're getting are completely different.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Red Iron Crown
Snipped some verbiage from the quoted post.

[basic.syntax]

Devnote Tuesday will most likely have the next official response to community concerns - let's be patient.

[Robotengineer]

I say after quite a few years development that you have all gotten what you paid for, and you need to stop complaining about the game you have now. I would gladly give squad another 14.99 now, plus the money already given, they have worked tirelessly on this game. I left @ .19 and am now back @ .9 and I have to say there is alot of content added, there are many other games that actually release without .... for content. be glad squad isnt one of them. Now stop acting all entitled.

Justin

I am not demanding more content. All that I have said is voicing a concern over how KSP will be received by the general gaming public leaving early access and entering post-dev. I would gladly pay to have 1.0 done right, and wait, than have it be rushed out prematurely. I believe the current price of KSP is $30 USD, I would gladly pay that much to get a solid 1.0, rather than a shaky one.

--Updated--

Devnote Tuesday will most likely have the next official response to community concerns - let's be patient.

That is likely. Though I don't know how they could just go on business as usual.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Robotengineer
Update

[Jacke]

...for example: instead of food, oxygen and water there could just be a "life support" resource....

Better Than Starting Manned has a single Life Support resource and it works quite well to put a limit on flight operations.

I say after quite a few years development that you have all gotten what you paid for, and you need to stop complaining about the game you have now. I would gladly give squad another 14.99 now, plus the money already given, they have worked tirelessly on this game. I left @ .19 and am now back @ .9 and I have to say there is alot of content added, there are many other games that actually release without .... for content. be glad squad isnt one of them. Now stop acting all entitled.

darqen27, [i vehemently disagree]. This is about Squad pushing for version 1.0 too soon and not money or any other issue.

KSP players have been raising serious concerns in this thread. A lot of them have experience (good, bad, and horrible) with games going from alpha into beta in release as players and as developers. They are concerned that Squad is making a serious mistake. They see a trend of bugs not being dealt with. Despite getting good additions with each version, we also see new bugs and general instability increasing. Now Squad is going to put out the largest collection of changes that has even been in any version. We like seeing improvements and fixes. But we also know with that much new code there will be a bumper crop of new bugs. Two whole new systems (realistic aero and extractable resource) are being added and will need more work to get right.

That's not what you put in a v1.0 release. The next version should be 0.91 because it is still no more than beta.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Vanamonde
Please don't insult each other.

[Red Iron Crown]

Merging another 1.0 thread to the poll thread, please carry on.