Suggestions on how to make Hard more hard instead of grindy

[patrickkk]

It has been discussed before that hard currently means grind-y unless you're building the cheapest possible rockets (like i do now). I would like to propose some mechanisms that actually make things harder. Without (as far as i can tell) requiring a lot of development. (just a lot of balancing)

Depending on the difficulty you could

• decrease the margins for doing X within an area. (put satellite in orbit/do observational study ect.)
  • very exact positioning will also give more use to RCS on smaller ships
• decrease time windows for contracts to leave less room for retries.
  • for example get to the mun and back within less time leaves little room for retries
  • Resque /docking within limited orbits/time  (requires launching and docking within a few orbits for example)
• Make the atmosphere more unforgiving (the rocket breaks up faster due to side way stress) so you can't really go off pro-grade as much (ever seen a rocket steer sideways and back?)
• decrease impact tolerance (landing/docking will be harder)
• decrease SAS torque

What do you think of these ideas? Got any other ideas that will make things harder and require some KSP skill?

[Pax Kerbana]

The tech tree and Kerbal cost structure need to be fixed first.

Change tech to be more organic, research along a path where tech takes time to develop. Select a tech you want to research and 2 years later you can prototype the first part. Cost for program down-payment and yearly costs. Allow the player to speed up development via the admin options or on a per-program basis with increased fees. Allow access to all basic tech at the start... batteries, small wings, etc. Some techs are given to you for nothing but prototype costs, because you've used a part enough to gain experience with the system. Use the Reliant enough and Wernher von Kerman proposes prototyping a Swivel (you still have to pay for the prototype). Research program costs can be kept under control by setting a cap on research allocation, example: a 2 year program costing √15k total (√7.5k per year) takes 3 years because you have set the max yearly research expenditure at √5k.

Fix Kerbal hiring so that Kerbals of different experiences are offered. The more experienced they are, the more they cost. The better your rep, the more likely you will attact experienced Kerbals. Greatly reduce the cost of Kerbals relative to parts (they are far too expensive, needs to be balanced). Recruit a Kerbal by paying a small signing bonus and then pay a yearly salary for a 10-year contract. Some will say they don't want to be Kerbal KR, fine I appreciate the sentiment, but what is Career mode for if you don't have to manage a space program? The costs would be easy to manage, have all committed yearly costs summed up to display next to your funds. The admin building could have a place where you see KR contract costs, and forecasted costs for the next 2, 5, and 10 years. Add a continuous fund stream (financed by Kerbal Government) that will help mitigate any real impact from HR costs. If you kill a bunch of Kerbals, your rep is hit, and you lose a portion of the funding.

Okay, now we have a functioning tech and hiring process, we can talk about making the game "harder". Because Squad has gone through all of the above effort to finish Career mode, I propose a very simple solution. We all know they love slider bars, and fine, not really my style but it works. I therefore propose a slider that will scale up the Kerbol system (at the same time reducing density). It could go from 10% (current game configuration) to 100%. Maybe the truly insane would want more, but I'm fine with 10x lol.

[Violent Jeb]

I don't think "time" mechanics will make the game harder. More like, hard mode: now you miss the first dozen launch windows!

There are mods for time researching but i don't see that as making the game more difficult.

I agree that hard mode is grindy, but adding a waiting mechanism doesn't fix it. The costs of new hires needs to be lowered across the board. At this point i think "light touch" is probably the best way to tweak the career. Little changes to costs and rewards, and review changes carefully for improvement. one thing i noticed is the 2 person mk1 passenger module is way OP compared to the landing can. Less weight per kerbal, cheaper, higher tolerances all around. can't be controlled directly but for moving teams of units its a no brainer. Just an example of some of the changes that need be made.

What would make the game physically harder to play and perform..? 

•no SAS at all (or put it high the tech tree)
•weakened / realistic reaction wheels & RCS
•non-infinite astronaut RCS
•hotter re-entry (i believe they already have this slider)
•I also like the idea from the ingitor[sic] mod where your engines can only be started a limited number of times.

basically things that are realistic which typically complicate things. You could integrate remote tech requirements for unmanned crafts, stipulate failure without electric charge, any number of things.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Violent Jeb

[Venusgate]

how about instead of tighter contract restrictions, just more types of contract restrictions (and subsequently, contracts). 

Like:
"Land on the moon, launch vehicle <20tons"
"Escape the atmosphere... IN UNDER 20 SECONDS! GO GO GO MOVE MOVE MOVE!"
"Retrieve [Kerbal] from coordinates [x,y]" (earlier land retrieval of new astronauts) 

Also, removing the KSC grind at least in hard mode. Every time I start a new game it's basically REQUIRED I spend an hour+ in the nub zone grinding?? 
I don't know what you would replace it with, since the starter parts don't leave for a lot of creative science gathering, but seeing the same exact sites every time is *yawn*

[Rath]

It should in no way effect part stats.  

[mk1980]

i don't really agree with the whole "hard mode is too grindy" idea. it can feel grindy if you try to finish the tech tree before you even consider going to other planets, but the game sure doesn't *force* you to play that way.

contracts for other planets give *a lot* more cash than simple mun/minmus trips, and you get a lot more science points for doing experiments on bodies outside the Kerbin SOI.

i think the "grindyness" (is that even a word?) is mostly self imposed. you can actually do missions to duna or gilly or something without going beyond the 90 science point tech level, so there is actually no need to grind science/money from 15 different moon biomes if you choose to go interplanetary early.

there's also no real need to grind 30 different KSC biomes if you choose to go to the mun/minmus early.

i think that's also the way the game is actually intended to be played on harder settings - you get lower rewards for easy tasks, so you are encouraged to do harder tasks instead.

at least, that's my point of view on that matter.

[Wjolcz]

No. The career needs to change first.

 

[Nich]

The major problem is hard does not enforce hardness.  You can simply grind around the hardness.  You can land on the Mun with Tier 1 tech and level 1 facilities but most people wait for 2.5m stuff and level 2 facilities.

[Mr. Scruffy]

On 6.5.2016 at 10:59 AM, Rath said:

It should in no way effect part stats.  

Well, unless the parts´ stats´ descriptions are dynamic, also. Under no circumstances should it read: "impact tolerance = 8m/s", when really, for whatever reason, it is only 7m/s. If they are though, i´d think that having them impacted by difficulty setting would be a good idea, allthough i realize, that squad probably wont agree to this, with their desire for common player experience and all that.

[Sereneti]

i think the "hard" part should came from error-forgiveness:

simpel: Quicksaving.+revert flight
normal: revert flight
Hard: dead is dead...

 

 

[Violent Jeb]

On 5/6/2016 at 5:00 AM, mk1980 said:

i don't really agree with the whole "hard mode is too grindy" idea. it can feel grindy if you try to finish the tech tree before you even consider going to other planets, but the game sure doesn't *force* you to play that way.

contracts for other planets give *a lot* more cash than simple mun/minmus trips, and you get a lot more science points for doing experiments on bodies outside the Kerbin SOI.

i think the "grindyness" (is that even a word?) is mostly self imposed. you can actually do missions to duna or gilly or something without going beyond the 90 science point tech level, so there is actually no need to grind science/money from 15 different moon biomes if you choose to go interplanetary early.

there's also no real need to grind 30 different KSC biomes if you choose to go to the mun/minmus early.

i think that's also the way the game is actually intended to be played on harder settings - you get lower rewards for easy tasks, so you are encouraged to do harder tasks instead.

at least, that's my point of view on that matter.

This is incorrect.

Even if you COULD build an interplanetary ship with no funds and tier 1 everything, under 30 parts, etc. It's going to use up all your starting cash, and contracts will not generate for interplanetary until you have the required rep THEREFORE you will have no cash to do the next mission even if you do succeed in getting a few hundred science to make your ships not be 10 piece monstrosities for the next 2 hours.

Seriously, send me some pictures or a video of your "hard mode doing whatever you want in 3 contracts game". Have you even tried it?

It bugs me when people try to sidestep the literal design problems in the career mode with completely fabricated claims, which in effect encourage the devs to keep it broken.

 

[Grumman]

12 hours ago, Mr. Scruffy said:

Well, unless the parts´ stats´ descriptions are dynamic, also. Under no circumstances should it read: "impact tolerance = 8m/s", when really, for whatever reason, it is only 7m/s. If they are though, i´d think that having them impacted by difficulty setting would be a good idea, allthough i realize, that squad probably wont agree to this, with their desire for common player experience and all that.

Something I once suggested was that Experimental parts might be the only ones with the rated impact and heat tolerances, with each individual part being assigned a random percentage bonus to both statistics on launch. When you first unlock a part it might have the base tolerances +1-20%, increasing to a flat +20% as you unlock more branches of the tech tree. Hard difficulty might not provide that benefit, keeping it at the +1-20% rate no matter how much you explore the tech tree.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Grumman

[mk1980]

10 hours ago, Violent Jeb said:

This is incorrect.

Even if you COULD build an interplanetary ship with no funds and tier 1 everything, under 30 parts, etc. It's going to use up all your starting cash, and contracts will not generate for interplanetary until you have the required rep THEREFORE you will have no cash to do the next mission even if you do succeed in getting a few hundred science to make your ships not be 10 piece monstrosities for the next 2 hours.

Seriously, send me some pictures or a video of your "hard mode doing whatever you want in 3 contracts game". Have you even tried it?

It bugs me when people try to sidestep the literal design problems in the career mode with completely fabricated claims, which in effect encourage the devs to keep it broken.

 

don't quote me when you clearly didn't even read what i wrote...

i did NOT write that you should go interplanetary with tier 1 everything. i said you can bypass the silly KSC biome grind by going for the moons early. and you don't need to grind 20 different moon biomes when you can go interplanetary instead.

the game will generate contracts for duna. eve, gilly etc. shortly after you did your first mun or minmus landing. that's a clue.

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by mk1980

[Wjolcz]

20 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

 

the game will generate contracts for duna. eve, gilly etc. shortly after you did your first mun or minmus landing. that's a clue.

 

Which is a bad mechanic IMO. The whole 'contracts' idea is horrible too. The game should allow for specific programs (Adming Building) to be available for the player to pick and then generate missions (Mission Control) based on what programs were chosen.

[Nich]

13 hours ago, Violent Jeb said:

This is incorrect.

Even if you COULD build an interplanetary ship with no funds and tier 1 everything, under 30 parts, etc. It's going to use up all your starting cash, and contracts will not generate for interplanetary until you have the required rep THEREFORE you will have no cash to do the next mission even if you do succeed in getting a few hundred science to make your ships not be 10 piece monstrosities for the next 2 hours.

Seriously, send me some pictures or a video of your "hard mode doing whatever you want in 3 contracts game". Have you even tried it?

It bugs me when people try to sidestep the literal design problems in the career mode with completely fabricated claims, which in effect encourage the devs to keep it broken.

 

Duna and back in 4 missions is possible on hard.  but eve and back is not

[John JACK]

On 07.05.2016 at 2:42 PM, Sereneti said:

i think the "hard" part should came from error-forgiveness:

That's exact opposite of fun, and also total definition of grindy. Instead of replaying a mission, you want to replay whole program. Hard mode need to set harder goals (to get greater satisfaction from beating them), not punish more for failure in same easy missions. Beating baby in chess is easy, beating Kasparov is hard. But beating hundred babies is grindy, and being shot if you fail to beat some fiftieth baby is a reason to quit.

Tighter contracts are really a good way to make game both hard and fun. Inserting satellites to several meters tolerance, rescues in polar high eccentric orbits, testing parts at orbital speed below sea level, returning ore from Eve, all that stuff.
More cruel physics may provide too, reentry heating even at highest 120% is still a joke. But nerfing parts IMO is not good, good crafts should work good in any save. And stuff that need more planning, like finite attitude control and engine ignitions must be left for mods only, for stock game does not allow for any planning.

tl; hard mode must make you do awesome stuff. And absolutely not more boring stuff. More boring stuff is a wrong kind of hard for a game with ROCKETS and EXPLOSIONS.

Edited May 8, 2016 by John JACK
Good thought was late

[Sereneti]

in this way, difficulty schouldnt be a part of the "game", it schould be a part of the contract...
there are different type of contracts:
Easy; normal, medium  and hard.

i think finite engine-ignitions are a good thing.
Not finite - "you can only ingite 12X" but finite in the meaning of "cost resource"...
You can ignite a motor by electric charge.
you can ignite a turbine by electric charge, self ignititng chemicals..
you can ignite a rocket-engine by electric chare, self igniting chemicals, ore the rocket dosnt need a ignition because the fuel is self-igniting...

 

[John JACK]

8 hours ago, Sereneti said:

You can ignite a motor by electric charge.

That is infinite after first solar panel. And I think stock LF and OX are a hypergolic pair and ingnition means only starting turbopump.

If ignition limit is generous, it will just make game slightly more complex, not harder. And if it's very limited, it's fit only for hardcore realism mods, not for general public.

16 hours ago, Veeltch said:

The whole 'contracts' idea is horrible too.

Why? Contracts are good, if unbalanced (like pretty everything in KSP). They give player purpose and goals, both short and long term, preventing Asinus Buridani.

[Wjolcz]

5 hours ago, John JACK said:

 

Why? Contracts are good, if unbalanced (like pretty everything in KSP). They give player purpose and goals, both short and long term, preventing Asinus Buridani.

Because they should be called 'missions' and be tied to programs you want to complete instead of doing a whole bunch of random stuff and sun retrograde orbit rescues. They are just too random and meaningless.

[John JACK]

6 hours ago, Veeltch said:

They are just too random and meaningless.

Just like kerbals themselves. Kerbals see something shiny and immediately want to know how does it taste.

Contracts are too random, but wouldn't preprogrammed missions be too fixed and linear? Writing meaningful programs will take much time of many people, but most players will complete each program just once. KSP is a good sandbox game, tying a story to it may not only provide meaning, but force player play missions they don't want to.

[HebaruSan]

On 5/8/2016 at 9:17 AM, John JACK said:

Hard mode need to set harder goals (to get greater satisfaction from beating them)

Interesting. One obvious way to do that...

Easy: Flyby contracts

Medium: Orbital capture / return contracts

Hard: Lander contracts

I wonder how that would play out. A first time player choosing Easy would do a series of flyby missions across the solar system and probably feel pretty good about that. Then they'd start a new game at Medium (or maybe there could be an upgrade-difficulty button to keep the same save) and figure out how to get into orbit and return, potentially adding Δv to previous crafts for the additional burns. Then they'd do a Hard campaign and learn to design and fly landers.

I can see a few issues with that approach, but it might be better than having all the same kinds of contracts in all difficulty modes.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, John JACK said:

Just like kerbals themselves. Kerbals see something shiny and immediately want to know how does it taste.

Contracts are too random, but wouldn't preprogrammed missions be too fixed and linear? Writing meaningful programs will take much time of many people, but most players will complete each program just once. KSP is a good sandbox game, tying a story to it may not only provide meaning, but force player play missions they don't want to.

We are forced to decline contracts we don't want to do (in my case it's like 75% of them). Most of them are also dumb and contribute nothing significant. I've spent enough of my time in the Mission Control declining all the contracts I don't want to do. Would rather spend most of it designing and building a space station. One thing at a time.

Having a control over what kind of missions you get to do is better than the "fun" randomness we have now. Focusing on one program you actually want to complete gives more freedom IMO. And it would be even better if we could mix programs together (Space Station Program + Duna Exploration Program = Duna Space Station Program).

I don't start a career to play sandbox. What's the reason in having more modes than one if it's defined as a "sandbox game"?

[John FX]

On 06/05/2016 at 9:59 AM, Rath said:

It should in no way effect part stats.  

I don't agree

[Pax Kerbana]

On May 8, 2016 at 10:17 AM, John JACK said:

Beating baby in chess is easy, beating Kasparov is hard. But beating hundred babies is grindy, and being shot if you fail to beat some fiftieth baby is a reason to quit.

Haha this may be the best description of Kerbal I've ever read!