P.Lumumba

Thanks for trying everyone. I have a basic understanding of physics, and it got a bit better by playing KSP the last few years, but this is beyond me. let's say I want to land on one of the poles, so the bodies rotation doesn't come into play all too much. I based myself on the law of conservation of energy. Velocity and altitude combined give you the starting energy level, when you land it should be close enough to zero. (low speed, zero altitude) You use the engine the make it go down. (I know this is also energy at the start, but you're using it in the opposite direction) Am I right this far ? And if yes, does it mean that you get more energy out of 1 ton of fuel if you burn it up quickly (suicide thing) rather then slowly (slow controlled descend)

Can someone please explain why a suicide burn, or anything else, is more efficient than killing all velocity at Ap and guiding it straight down from there ?

I've tried about 10 times now, cancelling the contract & re-accepting. The 2 days orbit doesn't get completed. I tried transmitting something from space, made sure there were no other missions running, no other flights going on, made sure I landed the whole ship that got to orbit. nothing helps... After I landed the ship & recovered, it stills asks to return the orbiter home. (Am I supposed to land @ KSC to get the contract ?)

I had the problem with the EVA mission as well. Recovered the craft, but didn't get the mission. Anyhow, I'll try transmitting, it's not a major issue at all. Great work by the way, thanks! --UPDATE-- Transmitting did work, so that's just a minor issue. I do have a problem with the 2 days orbit mission now. Completed it twice, but I can't get the contract completed. Last time I double checked, all that was left to do was to return the ship, but upon recovery, nothing happened.

I think I agree with all of these propositions. The game should be pushing us into exploration & gathering science from exploration. But it seems to be more about the general game than about the difference between the difficulty levels. I strongly belief that a craft able to land on the moon in easy mode, should be just as able to land on the moon in hard mode. And should always be able to land on the moon. In other words, I don't like the idea of adding random failures, nor do I want to see them changing the isp / thurst values depending on the difficulty level. Maybe an obligation to recover the remains within a certain timeframe when you kill a kerbal [normal] + a hefty fine [hard] ?

Let's use maths as an example (100% predictable [at least the little I know is], as I want KSP to be): Easy : 2 + 3 + 8 + 12 -6 * 2 = Hard : ln(e/4)^(2/3) = Laborious : 2 + 8 *4 - 6 = 4 + 6 / 3 - 5 = 8 - 2 * 5 - 1 = 12 + 3 - 1 = ... There have been a few suggestions here that would make the game more difficult without the need to randomize, or simulate human interaction. I don't think the game needs random events to up the difficulty. New player (easy) don't seem to be struggling that much to make it to the moon eventually, but forcing them to do it with only 30 pieces might cause some headaches. Or forcing them to get it right on the first or second attempt. Or [insert your idea...]

This worked for me on hard. Once you have ion engine unlocked & seismic scan unlocked : Send an ion powered probe to Minimus with a thermometer & seismic accelerometer. Accept a bunch (as many as possible, check often if you don't like declining offers) of temp scan, seismic scan, science data & satellite missions. You can easily get 20 contracts (about √200.000 each) out of a probe that shouldn't cost you more than √40.000. Miminus Outpost contracts also pay good money for an easy job, and if you're lucky you can combine with other contracts. (orbital station, science, tests) √100.000 / launch, √350.000 and more in return. I got my R&D money like this, (√6.000.000) but it is a grind.

This is loose from the difficulty settings, it's just logic. The point of playing on Hard is the game being more challenging. (Not making harder challenges for yourself within the game) If all you need is an internal challenge, you don't need more that a sandbox. I enjoy (& expect) imposed challenges in a game...

IMO a higher difficulty level is one that leaves less margin for error. Not allowing to revert fits in well, no missing crew respawns too, but I'm not convinced about the diminishing returns of missions & inflated building prices. My ideas so far: I did very much enjoy being challenged to stay under 18tons at first, and under 30 pieces later. (You can do a lot with just 30 pieces if you have to) Instead of the building costing more, maybe they could make them more or less restrictive depending on the difficulty level. Lower the building costs & make research more expensive, forcing you to pick to parts you really need. Maybe they could change the pay up front & on completion ratio depending on difficulty, so successive failure will take you down faster on the more difficult settings. Autoaccept scripted missions & limit the timeframe. (maybe after every [yourNumber] other missions) I agree. I agree that grinding was my choice, but it seemed like the reasonable thing to do. The game has two basic things to max out: tech tree & visit all planets/moons. (preferably with your orange suited kerbals for max XP) Doing the long trips is much easier with the best gear, so I wanted the tech tree maxed first. By far the easiest money was doing all kinds of scans & surveys of Minimus (half of them while I was there doing a science tour anyhow...) Those missions paid almost as much as the scripted Duna, Ike & Eve missions, so yes, it seemed like the reasonable thing to do... Diminishing returns sounds good as a counter. (but it would make random station & base building much less likely, and that is how I like spending my profit a space program...) The science gained from missions should just be cancelled altogether. Reputation is still a bit of a vague concept to me. You know how much money you have, and what you can buy with it, same goes for science. But it's not always too clear how much reputation you have, what it does and what difference it would make if you would get this much more...

What are your thoughts & ideas about the difficulty settings ? [For starters, KSP is great stuff, despite anything below.] I just passed the early stages of my hard career game. (stock, standard hard settings) Did one Mun landing and a grand tour of Minimus. After that I wanted the final upgrade of R&D, so I did a ton of missions, and got there in the end. Anything interplanetary is still to come. I have two complaints about career mode in it's current setup : When I finally had the 6.000.000 to upgrade, I also had about 8.000 science sitting in the bank. Plenty to complete the tech tree. No need to drain Kerbin, or the Mun. No need to visit other planets. (I did use the administrative building to transfer rep into science at 20%, but I learned my lesson now) You don't set how difficult your game is, you set how long it will take to get the money. Squad seems to be working on balancing science & research, so enough about that. I don't remember reading anything about them planning to rework the difficulty settings.

Tried to build a spaceplane for a double rescue mission on Minimus. (More like a collection mission, since they were left behind on purpose) One from orbit, one from the surface. 4 Crashes and √100.000 later, I decided that spaceplanes aren't for today. Took a seismic survey on Minimus to pay for an adjusted MinimusLander launch, and got everyone back home. After that, I designed an Ike outpost on wheels, housing 9 & including a cupola, that should also fulfil the requirements for a station around Duna. Should bag me a nice amount of cash. (√1.000.000 - √1.500.000) Now I just have to find a way of getting it there, preferably one that doesn't involve dropping it from a great height...

Finally got the money for the last upgrade of the R&D facility. I'm sure there is no place left on Minimus where the temperature or seismic activity is still to be checked. And if there is, there will be a surface outpost close enough for someone to walk over there and check...

I can only answer for the version on my machine (32bit, Windows 8.1, all stock) : And that runs very, very smooth.

If they have an orange suit, I will probably start a new career when they die. All the others have a white suit and a name I can't remember anyhow... I need people to test my craft. Had a few sad moments when I first started building surveyplanes for Kerbin, as I never ever used the hangar before. But that's easily forgotten when hopping round on the moon...

I was counting the lab as 3 for an unknown reason... Thanks.

What counts as facilities for kerbals in those base & station building missions ? I had a lab & a 2 kerbal lander can, but that didn't do the trick for facilitating 5 kerbals...

As interesting and fun that diagram looks, I don't think it could lead to an accessible (marketable) game. It seems to me that there is a group of players not really willing to do a career start because it is too grindy for their taste. Implementing a resource system like this will lead to more, much more repetitive tasks. I don't think that is what most KSP players are looking for... I've played for about 400 hours in the last year and a half, all pure stock, no mods. And I loved every minute of it. It is mostly a sandbox, and I think it will always be exactly that. IMO the base game without mods is great fun already. Probably not as good as it could be, but close, and possibly getting there. (misses a few things for me : purpose for base building, aerodynamics, life support & some re-entry simulation)

[stock .90 career] Probed around Minimus doing temperature scans, crash landed my probe into Minimus after being a little to enthusiastic with the time accelaretion. (Probe is in perfect condition, but missing it's ion engine. So it's pretty, but useless) Did some sub-Orbital parts testing and maxed out the launch pad. Next up, send a lander & a lab to Minimus. Suck all the science out !

I had the same issue. Try retracting the landing gear once landed. Jeb had to do a monopropellant powered jump, but he got back in, no damage to the plane...

I just started a new career (.90) on hard and I'm quite enjoying the challenges it brings when combined with my CleanSpace rules: Some basic rules for a cleaner space: No orbit littering, aka Put your rubbish in the (Ker)bin : Don't leave your spent stages, deserted ships or empty fuel tanks collecting space dust in some random orbit. If you're preparing a mission for Minimus, and you decide to jettison a stage midway, that is fine. But your next mission will be collecting the debris. The same goes for the surface of planets & moons. A rover is only a rover when in use, or ready for use at your base. A rover in the open is a piece of junk. I have never been a great base builder, but a junk yard/crash site next to your base might just be acceptable. No debris collecting (Kerbin surface is ok!) or aborting missions Is anyone else out there trying to keep space as clean as possible ? What are the rules you set for yourself ?

I only play stock myself. (so far) And agree that you can't defend a flaw in a game by saying there is a mod for it. But I'm sure you got good value for money already... You knew this wasn't a finished product, so complaining about a lack of "meat" before full release doesn't make sense. I'm sure more will come, maybe soon. But modders will always be faster. As a small dev team, you can't even come close to the creativity of a modding community. With the devs working towards scope completion first (adding depth) and modders adding the width, (extra parts, contracts, ...) we get a full game much earlier. But as said before, devs should/will make sure the width is there before they call the game 1.0.

There are 5 templates for missions now, nothing too exiting yet. But I think it's a good start, and I'm sure the mod-army will cater your needs soon...