Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[FlowerChild]

Remember though that the whole x64 fiasco was due to a hack found by a modder that many people jumped on board with, then when Squad released their own version due to demand, everyone quickly blamed Squad for all the problems. That whole fiasco came about because of the original hack. Squad should have just left it alone and held to the fact that x64 simply wasn't ready.

That may be the case (I didn't know about it mind you), but it doesn't change the validity of the underlying point I was making there that modders tend to be keenly aware of the problems the game has, as we pretty regularly get them dumped into our mod threads

[basic.syntax]

When you look at the poll question, don't judge KSP as fit for a "1.0" release as-is, with what you see today in .90 - but also consider their "1.0" goals, announced in the Beyond Beta and Overhauled Aerodynamics articles.

[bdito]

He didn't say that. He said "Many players wouldn't be playing the game without the essential mods. Squad's game is many times better for them." He is implying that the game is unfinished because it does not include "essential mods" (which is not the same for everyone.)

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but IMO he's just saying everyone has their own preferred list of mods to play with. He never said they should be implemented into stock or that the game isn't complete without them. He's simply saying a lot of people have their own list of essential mods to make the game play the way they want and KSP is better for it.

[Dred_furst]

That may be the case, but it doesn't change the validity of the underlying point I was making there that modders tend to be keenly aware of the problems the game has, as we pretty regularly get them dumped into our mod threads

If you aren't aware, pretty much all of the bugs in x64 windows ksp are nothing to do with squad. they are unity bugs. Funnily enough, unity 4.x is in maintenance mode whilst 5.x is being developed. 4.x will only get very serious bug fixes that affect 90% of their customers. Most unity 4.x games are not x64 because x64 is buggy and they don't need it to do what they do (<3gb of ram is great thanks). So in a very direct way, x64 unity 4.x won't be fixed because x64 unity isnt used. Unity 5.x is being built with 64 bit support from day one that isn't seen as a bit of a hack.

[Broax]

Well, I'm an idiot for not reading anything and just assuming people were acting entitled in the other 59 pages of unread messages(I'm wittling them down now).

Apology's

Justin

Well... I admit I wouldn't be very keen to read that many pages myself... No harm done... I think that these days it's safe to assume most people don't think through about what they write on game forums.

Like, for example:

This is likely to upset quite a few posters, but it seems to me that several of the most vocal advocates against release seem to be the modders. Perhaps they feel that if they scream loud enough, there is a chance their mods might get implemented into stock and they can get a cash bonus prize? Many players do not care for FAR, BTSM, or many of the other "realism" mods, and Squad knows that.

Seriously, the only real complaint in all of this is the possibility of the release being terribly buggy. I'm sure it could happen, as it has happened. Every so often a serious bug slips through, but Squad is usually on top of those within 24 hours. Every other argument is moot. No, the game does not "need mod XYZ" to be complete. Some add cool stuff, but if it doesn't get added, that's fine. That is why the game is so moddable as it is. They want people to be able to tune the game to their own playstyle. With NASA, Elon Musk, and KerbalEDU, finances are certainly not a problem. Perhaps it might be an incentive to pick up the pace (4 years is a long time to develop a game, even for many blockbusters,) but I would imagine the recent realization that they have hit the four year mark made them re-evaluate where they are and they realized they were much closer to being done than thought (couldn't see the forest through the trees.)

In these 60+ pages of comments I have seen plenty of posts from people who aren't modders sharing the same opinions as modders. I've also seen lots of comments from players with different opinions from mine which raise valid points and good arguments. In the end I disagree with their points of view but do feel they have contributed to the discussion.

The same can't be said about your post, which I feel it's purely destructive criticism targeted at people who happen to think differently then you.

People that are opposed to 1.0 seem to be sounding mostly three points.

1) The game lacks content. These people suggest a lot of mods as starting points to fill that void.

2) The game lacks balance. These people would mostly like to have more testing in order to balance costs, rewards, etc. Maybe a bit more content could help balance everything.

3) The game lacks polish. These people would like more testing to weed out bugs. Some extra additions (like unity5) would also help fix this.

I think in (in my perception) that most people feel it's a combination of the three above. Some want much more polish and a bit more balance with little to no extra content. Some want more content and speak more about mod integration. Even if you are against adding more content there are plenty of reasons why it feels, for some, too soon to allow the game to go Gold.

To dismiss these views and categorize them as "modders that want a shot in the spotlight" is an error in my opinion. An error that might impact the image of Squad as developer and of KSP as product. At least that is my concern.

And, if you think of it. If the game was finished and development continued the chance of a mod to be integrated gets higher as core content is already done and now they can start to work with the creative people who make these mods and expand the content of the base game.

[Brotoro]

When you look at the poll question, don't judge KSP as fit for a "1.0" release as-is, with what you see today in .90 - but also consider their "1.0" goals, announced in the Beyond Beta and Overhauled Aerodynamics articles.

This is an important point.

I answered just what the question asks. "Is KSP ready for 1.0" My answer: No.

But that is not the same as, "Will KSP be ready for release as 1.0 after the Developers implement their planned changes"... To which my answer is: Yes, if they can pull it off.

[Robotengineer]

When you look at the poll question, don't judge KSP as fit for a "1.0" release as-is, with what you see today in .90 - but also consider their "1.0" goals, announced in the Beyond Beta and Overhauled Aerodynamics articles.

I have been, there are still a ton of things that should get done pre-release. IVA's, optimisation, parts redeux, and overall uniformity of assets that have not been listed on the 'Beyond Beta' post.

[NathanKell]

Yes, the reason I care about decouplers being fixed, or missing IVAs added, is because I want my mod rescaling the planets implemented. It all makes sense now!

[Dred_furst]

This is an important point.

I answered just what the question asks. "Is KSP ready for 1.0" My answer: No.

But that is not the same as, "Will KSP be ready for release as 1.0 after the Developers implement their planned changes"... To which my answer is: Yes, if they can pull it off.

Yep, this sums it up completely.

[klgraham1013]

I agree with the sentiment that the modders know the guts of ksp moderately well. However, people mod KSP as a hobby (and make awesome stuff). However, squad do this for a living. they aren't hobbyists. they sit there for at least 5 days a week working on KSP. It's not a few hours every few days for them. They know their game inside out. yes they don't know about things that aren't in ksp, but they sure as hell know how to make their engine sing.

I'm not sure if I'd demean hobbyist in such a way. There's something to be said for someone who's so passionate about something, they do it without any material reward. Many of us have probably had that one friend who's a crazy car nut. I've got a friend who has a garage full of equipment. I couldn't name half of it. He buys and restores cars. Pulls engines out and rebuilds them. He has no professional training. It's never been his job, but I'd put his skill against any professional mechanic. I've been building and maintaining PCs for about 15 years. I have no professional experienced, but I bet I'd have no problem doing the job of a Geek Squad employee with 6 months experience.

[Tiberion]

This is an important point.

I answered just what the question asks. "Is KSP ready for 1.0" My answer: No.

But that is not the same as, "Will KSP be ready for release as 1.0 after the Developers implement their planned changes"... To which my answer is: Yes, if they can pull it off.

And my answer is still No, because there are many many things not on the list that still need to be finished, polished, and fixed.

Edit: Nathan, you fool. You have ruined the plan! Meeting tonight at 9 in the Chamber of Secrets. Prepare to turn in your decoder ring.

[klgraham1013]

Yes, the reason I care about decouplers being fixed, or missing IVAs added, is because I want my mod rescaling the planets implemented. It all makes sense now!

Don't give away your dastardly plans!

[Broax]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but IMO he's just saying everyone has their own preferred list of mods to play with. He never said they should be implemented into stock or that the game isn't complete without them. He's simply saying a lot of people have their own list of essential mods to make the game play the way they want and KSP is better for it.

I would go as far as to say that. If KSP didn't have any mods and if I could only play the vanilla content I doubt I'd still be playing.

I would play it and love it for a couple of weeks. I would go to the moon and back. Minmus too. But I'd quit halfway through trying to calculate the required dV for a Duna two-way trip.

I think some mods make the game immensely more enjoyable (like KAS, TAC mods, DR, RT, etc.) but without Kerbal Engineer the learning curve would be so steep I would just forget all about it. It would become another Eve Online at my eyes. The game I'd love to play if I had the time/patience for it.

It wouldn't be a "bad" game. Just not a game for me.

I think that right about this time I should reaffirm my love for Squad and KSP. You guys have done a hell of a great work so far and all I want is the best! <3

[Alizerin]

Personally, I think KSP is ready for 1.0 whenever the developers think it is. Almost every game in existence gets new content added to it after release.

To me, this makes zero difference. I purchased the game I wanted in .23. Everything else has just been gravy since then.

Other rational actors will purchase the game they want in 1.0. For them, new releases will also be gravy.

In my experience, Squad has developed a reputation of churning out great updates on schedule, with vast changes and huge work. I have never played a game which feels like a new game every 3 months. They aren't making any noises about changing that, so I don't see any reason to flip out over a number.

Congrats on moving to 1.0 Squad. Keep up the great work!

[FlowerChild]

Yes, the reason I care about decouplers being fixed

That bug. Man, that one in particular is very relevant to the discussion at hand. It's been in stock KSP what now? 4 releases or so? It makes radial decouplers almost useless as they're just as likely to blow up an entire ship as to actually separate anything, and radial decouplers are such an important part of the game that I can't fathom why such a small issue hasn't been fixed and why the community hasn't been more up in arms about it.

In terms of things that undermine my confidence that Squad can pull off a stable 1.0 release, that one is right up there near the top. That bug is very close to being what I would think of as a "show stopper", and letting it even slip through the cracks for a single release was too much IMO, nevermind 4(?).

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[metl]

People that are opposed to 1.0 seem to be sounding mostly three points.

1) The game lacks content. These people suggest a lot of mods as starting points to fill that void.

2) The game lacks balance. These people would mostly like to have more testing in order to balance costs, rewards, etc. Maybe a bit more content could help balance everything.

3) The game lacks polish. These people would like more testing to weed out bugs. Some extra additions (like unity5) would also help fix this.

I will go over these yet again, as has been covered multiple times in the last 60 pages.

1. This is the "mod xyz has to be implemented" argument and is simply not a valid argument for why KSP should not go to 1.0 (feature creep, can't please everyone, not enough time, etc. Take your pick.)

2. Currently being worked on. Along with all of the other features being added. A valid point, but it takes away the idea that Squad might actually know what they are doing when it comes to the balancing being worked on and assumes it will need several passes to be "just right." The "more content" idea goes straight back to #1.

3. The stock game is relatively bug-free (especially compared to most other alpha/betas announcing the big release.) Unity5 is out of Squad's control, as is problems with x64 and memory issues caused by people loading too many mods then wanting to blame Squad. There are certainly some bugs which need fixed, but this next phase is also going to contain a heavy load of bug fixes, so once again we are back to incorporating a distrust of Squad to address the issues in the first pass.

So, as someone else just recently asked, will KSP be ready for 1.0 including the next release (which will just happen to be 1.0)? Yes. It will be. Unless they do something entirely outside of their normal operating procedures and completely change the game plan last minute, rewriting everything (like SWG:NGE type drastic.)

[Voyager55]

I don't frequenlty use IVA, but it's a must if you want to be considered a complete game. Jumping into your craft and switching to IVA only to find a hollow grey cylinder doesn't exactly scream "I'm a finished product!".

[tg626]

They didn't even bother to make the lab use the black void "placeholder" Iva used for the mk3. I've left keebals behind before since there's no "portrait" when they are aboard the the mpl. >

[basic.syntax]

Some have said that critics, especially large gaming site reviewers, will come out of the woodwork, and call out every bug and things that seems missing, when KSP goes 1.0. Of course, some of that may happen.

PC Gamer is saying nice things today -

the game will soon be officially releasedâ€â€a somewhat strange designation as it's been both available to buy and brilliant for a long time now.

He could have led off with a comment like "Despite its flaws... " but nope, just praise.

[BrainiacBlue]

I will go over these yet again, as has been covered multiple times in the last 60 pages.

1. This is the "mod xyz has to be implemented" argument and is simply not a valid argument for why KSP should not go to 1.0 (feature creep, can't please everyone, not enough time, etc. Take your pick.)

2. Currently being worked on. Along with all of the other features being added. A valid point, but it takes away the idea that Squad might actually know what they are doing when it comes to the balancing being worked on and assumes it will need several passes to be "just right." The "more content" idea goes straight back to #1.

3. The stock game is relatively bug-free (especially compared to most other alpha/betas announcing the big release.) Unity5 is out of Squad's control, as is problems with x64 and memory issues caused by people loading too many mods then wanting to blame Squad. There are certainly some bugs which need fixed, but this next phase is also going to contain a heavy load of bug fixes, so once again we are back to incorporating a distrust of Squad to address the issues in the first pass.

So, as someone else just recently asked, will KSP be ready for 1.0 including the next release (which will just happen to be 1.0)? Yes. It will be. Unless they do something entirely outside of their normal operating procedures and completely change the game plan last minute, rewriting everything (like SWG:NGE type drastic.)

Some things being work in progress do not mean ready for release. Planet terrain is WIP, procedural crater stuff is WIP, cockpit IVAs have been WIP since the Big Bang. If someone showed me Assassins Creed: Unity and said 'The NPC faces are WIP' I would slap them and tell them they should not have wasted their money on something so unfinished. The same applies here. WIP does not mean ready for release in any way whatsoever.

IF this game launches with missing IVAs, memory leaks, decoupler bugs etc. then as much as I love it I would struggle to give it a recommendation, as these are things that only .... poor Steam scam games possess.

[FlowerChild]

3. The stock game is relatively bug-free (especially compared to most other alpha/betas announcing the big release.)

I think this is the underlying assumption many of us here would disagree with. I personally consider the game to be very buggy (and I'm not talking about 64 bit win there, which I don't even use) for one that's shooting for a release with the next update, and beyond that, my feeling is that it's been getting buggier with each of the past few releases rather than more stable, which is a rather alarming trend.

At the far end of the severity spectrum, the community likes to joke about "the Kraken" destroying ships with physics bugs, but I doubt any of us would consider bugs that can not only destroy hours of play for no apparent reason, but even corrupt a person's entire save game rendering it unplayable without manually editing the file yourself, to be a reasonable thing to be occurring in a "released" game, or a game that's gearing up for release.

And that's without any new content, which Squad is still in the process of adding, and which will inevitably result in more bugs. I consider the real danger point here being that they aren't going feature complete and opening that version up to public testing, essentially working on new features right up until release.

[BrainiacBlue]

Wait 'til Alec Meer or any Rock Paper Shotgun critic gets their hands on it. They'll tear it a new one and will do so in a reasoned and mildly entertaining manner.

[metl]

That bug. Man, that one in particular is very relevant to the discussion at hand. It's been in stock KSP what now? 4 releases or so? It makes radial decouplers almost useless as they're just as likely to blow up an entire ship as to actually separate anything, and radial decouplers are such an important part of the game that I can't fathom why such a small issue hasn't been fixed and why the community hasn't been more up in arms about it.

In terms of things that undermine my confidence that Squad can pull off a stable 1.0 release, that one is right up there near the top. That bug is very close to being what I would think of as a "show stopper", and letting it even slip through the cracks for a single release was too much IMO, nevermind 4(?).

It is a bug that needs fixed, but this is a bit dramatic. it is certainly not a "show-stopper." It is easily overcame by attaching seperatrons to the boosters. I learned that after just a couple of launches, and so did most everyone else.

[Jacke]

[ Jacke ] didn't say that. He said "Many players wouldn't be playing the game without the essential mods. Squad's game is many times better for them." He is implying that the game is unfinished because it does not include "essential mods" (which is not the same for everyone.)

You started by saying this:

This is likely to upset quite a few posters, but it seems to me that several of the most vocal advocates against release seem to be the modders. Perhaps they feel that if they scream loud enough, there is a chance their mods might get implemented into stock and they can get a cash bonus prize? Many players do not care for FAR, BTSM, or many of the other "realism" mods, and Squad knows that.

Seriously, the only real complaint in all of this is the possibility of the release being terribly buggy. I'm sure it could happen, as it has happened. Every so often a serious bug slips through, but Squad is usually on top of those within 24 hours. Every other argument is moot. ....

So, you don't make an argument for or against whether the next version of KSP should be numbers 1.0 or not (the whole point of this thread and its poll). You attack modders saying they're only taking a stand against calling it 1.0 because they think they can pressure Squad to buy their mods.

Broax said it best about your words:

In these 60+ pages of comments I have seen plenty of posts from people who aren't modders sharing the same opinions as modders. I've also seen lots of comments from players with different opinions from mine which raise valid points and good arguments. In the end I disagree with their points of view but do feel they have contributed to the discussion.

The same can't be said about your post, which I feel it's purely destructive criticism targeted at people who happen to think differently then you.

People that are opposed to 1.0 seem to be sounding mostly three points.

1) The game lacks content. These people suggest a lot of mods as starting points to fill that void.

2) The game lacks balance. These people would mostly like to have more testing in order to balance costs, rewards, etc. Maybe a bit more content could help balance everything.

3) The game lacks polish. These people would like more testing to weed out bugs. Some extra additions (like unity5) would also help fix this.

I think in (in my perception) that most people feel it's a combination of the three above. Some want much more polish and a bit more balance with little to no extra content. Some want more content and speak more about mod integration. Even if you are against adding more content there are plenty of reasons why it feels, for some, too soon to allow the game to go Gold.

To dismiss these views and categorize them as "modders that want a shot in the spotlight" is an error in my opinion. An error that might impact the image of Squad as developer and of KSP as product. At least that is my concern.

And, if you think of it. If the game was finished and development continued the chance of a mod to be integrated gets higher as core content is already done and now they can start to work with the creative people who make these mods and expand the content of the base game.

And all you can counter that with is more brickbats at mods, saying Squad's working on it, and talk about KSP being relatively bug-free.

But Squad working on bugs hasn't fixed the decoupler bug for the last 4 versions. Nor prevented new bugs including memory leaks from cropping up with the current release.

[metl]

I think this is the underlying assumption many of us here would disagree with. I personally consider the game to be very buggy (and I'm not talking about 64 bit win there, which I don't even use) for one that's shooting for a release with the next update, and beyond that, my feeling is that it's been getting buggier with each of the past few releases rather than more stable, which is a rather alarming trend.

At the far end of the severity spectrum, the community likes to joke about "the Kraken" destroying ships with physics bugs, but I doubt any of us would consider bugs that can not only destroy hours of play for no apparent reason, but even corrupt a person's entire save game rendering it unplayable without manually editing the file yourself, to be a reasonable thing to be occurring in a "released" game, or a game that's gearing up for release.

And that's without any new content, which Squad is still in the process of adding, and which will inevitably result in more bugs. I consider the real danger point here being that they aren't going feature complete and opening that version up to public testing, essentially working on new features right up until release.

In 500+ hours, I have had one Kraken attack, and that was caused by KAS pipes. I appreciate your coding knowledge, but KSP is remarkably stable for an Early Access title. Not that lineage really has any bearing on these arguments, but for the sake of context, I will say I have been beta testing games since since the 90's and Squad is in fine shape. Bugfixing always comes last.