KSP Resource System Set Aside / Multiplayer Added

[Taleric]

RAWR! So upsetting... The KSP forums have gone into a firestorm and I support Squad getting hit for dropping a feasible feature for something they claimed was impossible (multiplayer).

Sums it up:

Spoiler

Show

[FlowerChild]

Multiplayer? Seriously?

Man, given the distances involved and the necessity for time warping to cover them, I can't think of many games that are less suitable for it :P

Let's hear it for whining kids that don't actually know what they want or at what cost it comes. It does kind of make me smile though that this is a highly visible example of "ok, if you want B, you can't have A anymore" and how everything in game dev is a tradeoff like that.

[kregoth]

Wait what? Can you link me to this massive change in focus? I never heard of this until just now!

[FlowerChild]

Wait what? Can you link me to this massive change in focus? I never heard of this until just now!

I think they must have announced it during Kerbalcon. I checked over the forums, and found a few threads discussing it, but not an original announcement.

[Taleric]

Yes live-stream, I am hunting but the archive is closest I have gotten http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/profile/pastBroadcasts.

Doubt they will want to put this in detail/writing given the reaction.

[Stormweaver]

Umm.

What exactly is the appeal in multiplayer KSP? I may not be a game developer or designer, but I'm pretty sure I've hung around here long enough to pick up one or two things, and unless I'm mistaken, isn't the entire point of multiplayer modes in games to provide interaction with other human players? In KSP, it'd pretty much add up to "Yeah mate, I'm bringing the refueling tug in now. Hit SAS and go eat lunch while I do this".

The only other direction I can see if some kind of shared kerbol system on a server that multiple people contribute to. ie, a bunch of people all playing single player, but with the bulk of the things you can do done by other people - that is, leaving each player only experiencing a bit of the game each. So...I don't get it.

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, the only real point to multiplayer is if there were say...a resource system :P

Seriously though, it's just not the kind of game that suits it. Likely a huge time investment for very little payoff other than silencing a few misinformed whiners.

[Sarudak]

I still want to see actual evidence that they're doing this. Then maybe we can start a petition.

[FlowerChild]

I still want to see actual evidence that they're doing this. Then maybe we can start a petition.

Yeah, I'd normally say the same, but given they're at a conference, and given the reaction is so extreme on the forums, I tend to believe it's the case.

[Taleric]

Zeroing in: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/thr ... post841647

*Maxmaps' comment regarding impact of resource reprioritization on KSP community.

[dawnraider]

That's understandable. But i still don't understand what benefit there is to multiplayer in KSP. It just doesn't suit the game at ask.

[Stormweaver]

Well...if they feel it's outside of their scope then it's probably a good thing they're not trying to forge ahead and implement it anyway. Better a feature not make it that a player can mod in, than a bad feature get added that players have to mod out.

And to be honest, I'm not really seeing resources anyways. Sure, it's nice to have a reason to perhaps set up permanent installations in places around the solar system, but it's not like it has to be part of a resource system. They already have a fairly solid (if unpolished) 'resource' system in science which can be expanded on quite a ways from where it is right now, and a kerbin-centric economy system will be a whole lot easy for the dev team to balance and prevent from being 'grindy' while filling a players need to have to acquire things to proceed - even if it's just currency.

Then again, I'm likely only really going to experience KSP from on top of flowers's big fiery heatshield as KSP plunges through the soupy atmosphere of community relations and appeasement, so...meh.

[FlowerChild]

Honestly, I didn't even know resources were part of the plan, thus it's not a particularly big deal to me. What I am wondering though, and what could potential be a big deal to me, is I wonder whether this includes money in career mode as well :\

My main objection here is that they're doing multiplayer, not that they're getting rid of resources. I get the sneaking suspicion they are just doing it to try and offset people getting pissed off or something, which would be an obvious error.

[TheAnarchitect]

It has become increasingly clear to me that the minecraft model of game development is a flawed one. That is, letting people buy the incomplete product early, then giving incremental updates until you reach an arbitrary "finished" point, leads to bad games.

1: Too much community input too early leads to developers being pulled in too many directions.

2: "It's still in Beta" becomes the convenient excuse for any feature lacking polish.

3: Many players will go through their entire experience of the game, from "this is the new hotness" to "I'm bored with this now," while the game is still incomplete.

4: Modders will start adding features that are intended to be in the game, before the main developers can add them, and have the modded versions become accepted by the community.

5: Developers have little to no incentive to stop. The game is never finished.

[FlowerChild]

Well, considering BTW followed that model, I'm not convinced it's entirely flawed and plan to use it for RTH :)

The thing is though, I think you really need to be a prick that is capable of saying "no" to just about everything and still keep your own vision on track. For most devs though, yeah, I totally agree.

I agree with the mod thing though, and have thought a lot about that myself. I will like likely be adopting a "no mods" policy for RTH as a result.

[Gunnerman21]

Okay.. this just does it for me, I haven't been playing ksp for a while but removing resources will gladly make me not play again. The game becoming a rocket "Simulator" that you play with friends to blow sh*t up isn't appealing to me at all. I want to build, not destroy. Sure you'll get a chuckle out of massive rockets on the launchpad snapping off their clamps and smashing into the ground, or an over-sized rover not having enough deltaV to land on Minmus. But that gets old. I saw huge features of this game entirely based off of resources, and they dropped it? Cities requesting air transport, permanent bases with hydroponics on other planets, even building rockets in a VAB on Minmus would all require special resources other than fuel.. I saw the game becoming a way to colonize the entire kerbolar system by yourself by mining and building with the stuff you mine. They even had all the 3D models of drills ready to implement... I hope they at least make a simpler version equal to the kethane mod.

[TheAnarchitect]

Yes, having a contrarian at the helm Helps. But really, you've never really been making a game for us. You've been making a game for you, and graciously allowing us to play it. Actually, you're playing a second game one tier up, where our reactions to your game is the game. Fucking Skinner-boxcrafter.

Anyway, what I really mean is that a mod to a game following the minecraft model has to follow the minecraft model, otherwise you're trying to hit a moving target. And just because something worked once, doesn't mean it's not flawed. As of right now, all the games I've bought and played that have followed this model, have developed three or more of the symptoms listed. (Minecraft, KSP, Don't Starve, Starfarer/starsector.)

[FlowerChild]

And just because something worked once, doesn't mean it's not flawed.

True, and just because something fails multiple times does not mean it's not the right approach under the right circumstances.

I agree with almost everything you said man. What I don't agree with is whether it can work, and be beneficial, with the right person at the helm. In other words, I view the flaw in this equation as being the people that have used this method, not the method itself.

I've seen it outright wreck game after game that I love, yet I'm deciding to go that route anyways. Go figure.

Keep one other thing in mind as well:

The way most MC mods have gone using this model.

[FlowerChild]

Actually, one other point on the above in terms of the players just being along for the ride with BTW:

It wasn't always like that. If you read through the early pages of the MCF BTW thread, you'll see that I had a very different approach to the thing at start and was quite open to player feedback and suggestion.

Really, what happened is that the more pressure was exerted, rather than caving, the more entrenched I became in my own design ideology. When community pressure got to the point where I was borderline overwhelmed, instead of compromising my design vision to accommodate it, I turned off my own emotional response to that pressure. Basically the opposite of what we see happening with a lot of these games.

[Ozziie]

Really, what happened is that the more pressure was exerted, rather than caving, the more entrenched I became in my own design ideology.

You've said this before but the Minecraft model also exposes the developers to the community without the shield of a PR manager. We have seen more and more developers interacting with the community with the rise of indie games and it's having a negative impact on the quality of the games themselves. Back-seat developing is something we all like to do but having an almost direct line to the developer is hurting the industry imo :(

The only point I would argue is actual sales of the game and it's something we often overlook. Has making Starpoint easier increased sales? Has watering down Minecraft's content increased sales to cater for a wider audience? Will adding multiplayer to KSP increase sales?

I'm sure we all agree that we would much rather have a tighter game experience but I sometimes wonder if they see increased sales after a community input patch and adapt their design philosophy to suit.

You could extend this to programmers not being games developers as well but it's something we've discussed at length elsewhere.

[TheAnarchitect]

I certainly can't speak from a Developer's perspective, except in the most armchair sense. I trust you to choose the right approach for your development.

As a Consumer, I've become skeptical of purchasing products that follow this model. I'm no longer willing to shell out money for a game that's not finished, is likely never to be finished, and is likely to become an unplayable mess before the community is done with it.

::Edit:: I want to add that I WILL be participating in whatever Buy in Beta program you do for RTH. Partly because I trust your awareness of the problems and your contrariness to prevent the main issues. But mostly because I enjoy talking about game design with you so much I'm willing to pay for the privledge.

[maxsi]

ok the video where they talk about MP is this one http://www.twitch.tv/ksptv/b/487178814 arond 6 min mark
according to the video MP is a long term goal for after career mode is DONE.

[FlowerChild]

As a Consumer, I've become skeptical of purchasing products that follow this model. I'm no longer willing to shell out money for a game that's not finished, is likely never to be finished, and is likely to become an unplayable mess before the community is done with it.

Yup, I'll certainly be hesitant about this stuff in the future as well, and already am. I tend to pickup games like KSP, Stabound, 7 Days, Don't Starve, and many of the others that you see me mentioning here regardless though, because I am of course interested in seeing what other "creative" games are doing since I am making my own. These games are basically my "competition" with RTH, so it's in my best interest to be aware of all the current design trends. With other genres though, I am much more selective about which games I pick up while still in dev.

I guess you could say my interest in them is thus more professional than as a player, so to me, whether they ever get completed or the direction which they wind up taking is secondary. My goal is to see them as they are now.

I think there is definitely merit to the approach, especially when it comes to funding an indie game. But, like I alluded to above, just because your average joe consistently messes up the recipe of a master chef, I don't think it's the recipe that's at fault :)

[Nexus Trimean]

Official announcement here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/con ... n-Announce

I'm Saddened that Resources are likely being scrapped, but i don't think this is a substituting X for Y situation. It looks like resources were scrapped a long time ago, (back in .20) we were just never informed. The information came out in Kerbalcon as the Dev's were asked the question repeatedly in chat during the closing stream.

[FlowerChild]

I couldn't resist chiming in:

Honestly, working on multiplayer strikes me as rather odd. KSP seems like a game that would be least served by having MP given the distances involved and the need for time acceleration to cover them.

Why do you guys view MP as a priority? It really strikes me as a lot of development effort for very little gain that will likely not be played by very many people.

And that is all I will attempt to say on the matter :)