Do you feel KSP is ready for 1.0?

[metl]

That's about how I feel about the IVAs. Fun for a few seconds, but in all reality I never actually use them. I think all of them need overhauled, not just added to be added. They need to be a bit more usable instead of just a flashy feature only for show.

[Broax]

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

Most of what I've read is a community that has been involved in the development of this game expressing some concern regarding what seems to be a rushed decision which might backlash and hurt the reputation of the game and developers.

I speak for myself... Most of the features that I feel are missing from the game I can get from mods. So it doesn't really impact me. But since I have Squad in KSP in such high regard I'd hate to see them making a mistake and thus I express my opinion, as many have, in an articulated and constructive way.

If squad didn't want community input they wouldn't have develop an early access game nor would they have an official community forum. But since they have one, and as the word "forum" suggests, it is expected to exist and exchange of opinions and views related to the development of this product. some more passionate and others more moderate but most of the comments I've seen are constructive.

It is your right to consider the game to have all the required features to be considered a full product. It is also your right to believe the game critics and review sites will praise the game as it currently is.

I don't want to speak on behalf of all the forum users, but as I see it Squad has made a great product and, as a consumer, I am very grateful for the respect and dedication with which they have worked in these past years. I have started playing KSP comparably recently and even I am in awe with how far the game has come. But that being said, I still don't consider the game is ready to go Gold. As a consumer, a fan and as a member of this community I feel it is my right to express that feeling in a way that might help the developers.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Red Iron Crown
Removed some references to an edited comment.

[caipi]

I wouldn't release it as long as there is no stable Win 64bit version.

The game thrives on its vast modding community. Without 64bit you are limit to a small number of additional parts/mods.

[darqen27]

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

Edited January 26, 2015 by darqen27

[Dred_furst]

Also holy ...., we're not talking about EA here. KSP is an ongoing thing at squad, it's not going anywhere. Just because we've hit 1.0 and a release doesn't stop content being made.

Lets look at the usual project management speak for alpha, beta and release shall we?

pre-alpha: project plan and scope is defined. even in agile development you need to know what the scope of your game is. It is, however, flexible when we discuss a videogame. But it's not going to shift majorly (e.g. no orbital mechanics for 1.0).

alpha: usually very buggy, unfinished, Huge sections of content is missing. The project will spend most versions here. (we had tens of public versions of KSP, if not thousands of versions internally).

beta: Major milestone, Feature complete. Everything on the roadmap for 1.0 has been completed but it is buggy and needs polish.

release: Everything is quite shiny, bugs always get through release. there are no perfect releases.

ok, so maybe not that close to how KSP has been developed. KSP has been developed iteratively, but still needs an overall project plan for it to work. You cannot have a plan that never ends in the business world. there must be some sort of long term goal for a project. Depending upon the company, that can be 1 year post release (I'm looking at you, ubisoft, EA). Other companies take a much longer term view (hello squad, ccp, uh).

I mentioned iterative development a moment ago. This is important. Unlike old development styles, not everything is done at the same time. you break everything into smaller chunks (e.g. a set of parts to build a rocket, space plane parts, contracts system, science system... and it goes on). Once you've broken everything up, you assign everything a priority. Really important stuff (e.g. space) gets done first, things off the project plan get put to the back of the queue.

Once you've organised your big long list of work, you estimate how long each is going to take. You weigh up pros and cons of everything and decide what you can do within a sprint. You also decide what to do for each milestone. You try and make a stable release for each milestone with your headlining features included. However (and this is a big however) things don't always go to plan. Stuff gets dropped ()). stuff also gets added () things overrun, deadlines get missed. this is normal. you accommodate for human error and unforeseen circumstances in your plan by assigning more than the minimum time required.

And unlike traditional projects, KSP can overrun. it's got a longer plan than that. However, we still have an original plan and an original set of features that are required. It's pretty safe to say that once you have reached the goals of your initial scope of the project. the project is "feature complete". it isn't, however, done. (this is the beta stage). you then spend a few milestones (can be one, no reason why not) fixing any remaining content. Some projects refuse to add functionality during this stage (feature freeze), some do not. That comes down to risk management (thats a story for another day). At the end of this stage, if the people who wrote the original requirements are happy, the software is released. This is version 1.0

There's a lot more squad want to add to KSP, that much is abundantly clear (e.g. multiplayer). we've got to version 1.0 because squad have completed all the requirements for the initial release.

So, please stop speculating about an "early release". it's not early. it's by no means completely done forever. it is, however, done as in the eyes of the original project scope.

[metl]

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.)

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't even use IVA but I think they should be completed for 1.0. It's just unfinished to have IVA as a feature but only for certain cockpits.

[Tiberion]

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.)

You need to chill out and stop trying take down people who have a different opinion than you. You aren't discovering some secret conspiracy.

The reason so many modders are saying what they are is because they know the game so well. They're familiar with the way things work "under the hood" and are aware of the many things they have to work around because things aren't implemented or finished yet. Find my last post a couple of pages back and you'll find a list of such things, and its hardly comprehensive even then.

[Jacke]

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.

I don't think that's a far appraisal. The more serious modders have a better idea of the guts of KSP. And they are more familiar with the stock bugs as they need to rule them out when getting issues reported to them. And it's few modders that will get their mods incorporated, even with a rewrite. For example, the new aero model is all inhouse by Squad. Apparently they aren't talking to ferram4 at all.

[FlowerChild]

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.

Man, as the creator of BTSM, I have absolutely no ambitions in that regard. I am fully aware that the balance of BTSM is NOT the stock balance, nor is it intended to be. It's essentially a total conversion that creates a different gameplay experience out of KSP, thus I do not think Squad suddenly deciding "oh yeah, we should go with this entirely different design paradigm and integrate BTSM into stock" would be even a vaguely good idea.

Even that aside, I highly doubt that's what's motivating modders to oppose releasing (and you're right in that many seem to). What I think it more likely is, is that modders are essentially developers (depending on the mod type). Thus, we are more aware of the dangers of releasing a game with features that haven't been sufficiently tested. We are also more likely aware of the bugs that exist within KSP as we have to wrestle with them on a continual basis to get things working the way we would like.

Also, I think what modders have mostly been advocating (and definitely what I've been advocating) is a more robust testing period, NOT the addition of more features. I just would really like it if Squad were to consider putting out at least a single feature-complete version to the community so we can hammer on it and potentially find any remaining bugs and balance issues before it goes full release. I've previously suggested in this thread potentially opening up a 2nd stage of experimentals to absolutely everyone to that end.

And as an aside: BTSM is NOT a realism mod. It's a gameplay progression and challenge mod

[metl]

I don't think that's a far appraisal. The more serious modders THINK THEY have a better idea of the guts of KSP. And they are more familiar with the stock bugs as they need to rule them out when getting issues reported to them. And it's few modders that will get their mods incorporated, even with a rewrite. For example, the new aero model is all inhouse by Squad. Apparently they aren't talking to ferram4 at all.

Fixed for you.

[marce]

Even that aside, I highly doubt that's what's motivating modders to oppose releasing (and you're right in that many seem to). What I think it more likely is, is that modders are essentially developers (depending on the mod type). Thus, we are more aware of the dangers of releasing a game with features that haven't been sufficiently tested. We are also more likely aware of the bugs that exist within KSP as we have to wrestle with them on a continual basis to get things working the way we would like.

this

Modding is not about money. Not a bit. it's about trying to make a game you love even better from your own point of view.

So modders are actually the users who want most that KSP will be a success, because they put their own time into it.

[metl]

Man, as the creator of BTSM, I have absolutely no ambitions in that regard. I am fully aware that the balance of BTSM is NOT the stock balance, nor is it intended to be. It's essentially a total conversion that creates a different gameplay experience out of KSP, thus I do not think Squad suddenly deciding "oh yeah, we should go with this entirely different design paradigm and integrate BTSM into stock" would be even a vaguely good idea.

Even that aside, I highly doubt that's what's motivating modders to oppose releasing (and you're right in that many seem to). What I think it more likely is, is that modders are essentially developers (depending on the mod type). Thus, we are more aware of the dangers of releasing a game with features that haven't been sufficiently tested. We are also more likely aware of the bugs that exist within KSP as we have to wrestle with them on a continual basis to get things working the way we would like.

Also, I think what modders have mostly been advocating (and definitely what I've been advocating) is a more robust testing period, NOT the addition of more features. I just would really like it if Squad were to consider putting out at least a single feature-complete version to the community so we can hammer on it and potentially find any remaining bugs and balance issues before it goes full release. I've previously suggested in this thread potentially opening up a 2nd stage of experimentals to absolutely everyone to that end.

And as an aside: BTSM is NOT a realism mod. It's a gameplay progression and challenge mod

That is actually an extremely good description of BTSM. Thank you for explaining your position.

[DerpenWolf]

When they start doing more IVA's I hope they go back and try to make a few of the other ones more practical for actual use as well as improve aesthetics. Both of the capsules and the Mk 2 spaceplane cockpits could defiantly have some work done on them to make it so that you can use the window views a bit better and more practical for docking and actually flying the craft from that specific perspective (you cant really see whats in front of you for the MK-2 cockpits and It would be nice if they made it so you had a better view for docking with the big capsule as the zoomed view is currently slanted).

If squad can improve the IVA's for the older command pods when they add new ones then Ill be very happy!

[Jacke]

Fixed for you.

Wow, that's the height of intelligent argument.

Do you even follow mod threads? See how much work they have to put into developing and maintaining a mod, hooking into KSP where they should. Field players problems. Identify the errors and warnings in the logs they receive. And identify stock issues and bugs. And do this over and over again.

You original post was an unfair attack against the modders who add polish to KSP for no benefit other than praise. Many players wouldn't be playing the game without the essential mods. Squad's game is many times better for them.

[metl]

Wow, that's the height of intelligent argument.

Do you even follow mod threads? See how much work they have to put into developing and maintaining a mod, hooking into KSP where they should. Field players problems. Identify the errors and warnings in the logs they receive. And identify stock issues and bugs. And do this over and over again.

You original post was an unfair attack against the modders who add polish to KSP for no benefit other than praise. Many players wouldn't be playing the game without the essential mods. Squad's game is many times better for them.

This. This is the attitude that keeps creeping out from some of the mod developers and is completely baseless of any actual facts. Yes, many mods add some nice flavor to the game, but the game is far from not playable without mods, and certainly even farther from not enjoyable without mods. You just expressed the underlying attitude with many of those "against" release because it doesn't contain mod "xyz" and won't be complete until it does. Now come up with a real point of view for why it shouldn't be released.

[Mitchz95]

No way. It's coming along nicely, but there's still a ton to iron out. Bug fixed, better (and complete) IVAs ... I could go on for hours.

[Dudicus]

Endearment and the Esa badge will not excuse the lack of victory conditions, the lack of purpose parts, the lack of progression beyond a contract. 1.0 will be slammed by critics if those are not fixed.

imo, critic review are pretty meaningless in the age of early access. i seriously doubt critics are going to have a greater impact on the game than all the avid players that have already given the game a huge amount of positive feedback. i think this will be a case where the critics will be following the fanbase's existing feedback. also, its probable that this game has already generated way more sales than anyone at squad or elsewhere originally anticipated. i'm guessing they could easily ship this thing as is (w/o 1.0 improvements), call it a day and consider it a huge success based on alpha and beta sales alone, not to mention the enormous fan base it has. i'm not saying that there's nothing left to improve here, just that they've probably exceeded all their original goals (financial and otherwise) and want to present a finalized product.

[Robotengineer]

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.

I don't think this is it at all. I have made very few mods, and those that I have made are very small. But with all the stock bugs, modders have to try and look through bug reports that have nothing to do with their mod. That is (likely) why they want 1.0 to be stable. Modders don't make mods to get money, they make them because they see a gap in the game, and they fill it. So before you go blaming the people that make the game fun, try making and managing your own mod.

Anyways, I am going to go play the game that we so hotly discuss.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Robotengineer
removed irrelevant part of quote.

[bdito]

You just expressed the underlying attitude with many of those "against" release because it doesn't contain mod "xyz" and won't be complete until it does. Now come up with a real point of view for why it shouldn't be released.

What? He didn't say that at all. All anyone has been saying is that they want it properly tested so the bugs are minimal.

[Dred_furst]

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.

Incorporating third party mods is seen as a win/win for both sides involved. squad get a pat on the back for talking to it's community, ksp gets more content, the modder gets paid and some well deserved recognition. However, the mod has to fit KSP. This is why karbonite is having a fairly major graphical overhaul to fit with ksp. Some things should stay as mods (and I completely agree with metl on this here).

You can apply the same thing to cars. (It is a car analogy)

[FlowerChild]

I don't think this is it at all. I have made very few mods, and those that I have made are very small. But with all the stock bugs, modders have to try and look through bug reports that have nothing to do with their mod. That is (likely) why they want 1.0 to be stable.

Yeah, I think that's a very good point as well that I should have probably mentioned in my post above. Many modders essentially run tech support for their own mods. As a result, we're exposed to a wide range of player problems, some of which may have to do with us, some which don't, but we generally have to evaluate each one to determine if a bug resides in our code or in Squad's.

We thus become very familiar with the wide range of problems players face, and their origin, over time. There have been a number of occasions where I've implemented fixes for stock problems into my mod just to cut down on the tech support hassles and to create a more pleasant experience for players overall.

The 64-bit windows thing is a good example. Modders became quickly aware of how many problems there were with that version because we were inundated with bug reports that had nothing to do with us, to the point where the 64-bit version was blocked in some mods entirely, and for myself personally "Are you using 64 bit windows?" has become one of my standard questions when handling tech support for my mod.

Edited January 26, 2015 by FlowerChild

[metl]

What? He didn't say that at all. All anyone has been saying is that they want it properly tested so the bugs are minimal.

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.)

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I think that's a very good point as well that I should have probably mentioned in my post above. Many modders essentially run tech support for their own mods. As a result, we're essentially exposed to a wide range of player problems, some of which may have to do with us, some which don't, but we generally have to evaluate each one to determine if a bug resides in our code or in Squad's.

We thus become very familiar with the wide range of problems players face, and their origin, over time. There have been a number of occasions where I've implemented fixes for stock problems into my mod just to cut down on the tech support hassles and to create a more pleasant experience for players overall.

The 64-bit windows thing is a good example. Modders became quickly aware of how many problems there were with that version because we were inundated with bug reports that had nothing to do with us, to the point where the 64-bit version was blocked in some mods entirely, and for myself personally "Are you using 64 bit windows?" has become one of my standard questions when handling tech support for my mod.

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.

[FlyingPete]

The mk1 inline cockpit should just use the same IVA view as the regular mk1. I personally think the capsule IVA views are fine how they are- for most applications you're going straight up anyway, so the outside view isn't particularly useful. It's really on planes that being able to see is useful.

The windows on the Mk2 cockpits are a tad on the small side, and of course the Mk3 needs an IVA. It would be good to complete the set with interiors to the crew cabins and the lab.

[Robotengineer]

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.)

That is the whole reason everybodies idea of an 'essential mod' is not stock'd. It IS the reason why KSP needs to stay stable and realtively easy to mod. Squad can't please everybody, if they could we wouldn't have mods.

--Updated--

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.

IIRC, that was not a modder, it was somebody who was messing around with swapping Unity executables.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Robotengineer