Difficulty settings?

[The Pilotman69]

I'd like to start off by saying that KSP is easily one of my all time favorite games available on PC. I've spent many hours getting aircraft to complete ridiculous challenges with friends and many flight-related activities. My biggest area of expertise and my most visited Kerbal facility is aircraft. Making high-performance fighters that generally look ok is my thing. I would love to see some adaptable engines and intakes to better fit the design of the craft like SimpleRockets2 does, but it's not necessary for the launch update. My biggest deal with space travel - It's too easy. The size of Kerbal is purposefully small to make it much easier to get materials into orbit. Why not have different diameter Kerbals for different difficulty settings? Biomes just get up-sized and textures the same. "Realism setting" would be earth's Size and mass, then 65%, then the normal third. With the additional interstellar travel, this would make the game much more interesting for the group of players who know orbital physics and aero. I'm not trying to say that if someone finds space travel hard is dumb, but I've just time and time again gotten bored of the same old design of rockets that will always make it to high-orbit no matter what. 

I hope y'all take time to read this, and I want to thank the developers for staying true to the original game's aesthetics, and style. I'm super hyped for the release!

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, The Pilotman69 said:

Why not have different diameter Kerbals for different difficulty settings?

Because difficulty options that change the fundamentals of the game as opposed to just surface level things make balancing the game a mess. Modders will inevitably make a Sigma Dimensions analog for KSP 2 anyway.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Bej Kerman

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because difficulty options that change the fundamentals of the game as opposed to just surface level things make balancing the game a mess. Modders will inevitably make a Sigma Dimensions analog for KSP 2 anyway.

Also because you could make Kerbin very large undock the craft and shrink Kerbin, you are now in orbit 
I expect lots of the KSP 1 stuff, sandbox is nice for new players to just messing around in. 

[regex]

9 hours ago, The Pilotman69 said:

The size of Kerbal is purposefully small to make it much easier to get materials into orbit. Why not have different diameter Kerbals for different difficulty settings?

Because that's not really "difficulty", it's just an exercise in fighting part counts as you need more delta-V.

Edited December 28, 2022 by regex

[Bej Kerman]

5 hours ago, regex said:

15 hours ago, The Pilotman69 said:

The size of Kerbal is purposefully small to make it much easier to get materials into orbit. Why not have different diameter Kerbals for different difficulty settings?

Because that's not really "difficulty", it's just an exercise in fighting part counts as you need more delta-V.

So... difficulty.

Difficulty and challenge are two different things. It's not really "challenge", which is good, but it is difficulty, which tends to be bad. Pedantic rant over

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

14 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

Because difficulty options that change the fundamentals of the game as opposed to just surface level things make balancing the game a mess. Modders will inevitably make a Sigma Dimensions analog for KSP 2 anyway.

Also because you could make Kerbin very large undock the craft and shrink Kerbin, you are now in orbit 

This would require a quicksave edit to change locked-in difficulty values and you'd have to find your vessel's entry so you can change its state from landed and edit its orbital parameters to not encounter the surface or atmosphere, and at that point you might as well have just started from step 2 on a normal save 

[regex]

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

So... difficulty.

Uh, no, it's just dealing with lower framerates and janky physics. That's not "difficult", it's stupid.

E: and if you want to get pedantic about it OP uses "difficulty" to imply "challenge" (like most people asking for "difficulty"). I stand by my answer.

Edited December 28, 2022 by regex

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, regex said:

5 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

So... difficulty.

Uh, no, it's just dealing with lower framerates and janky physics. That's not "difficult", it's stupid.

So, difficult. As I explained

[The Aziz]

20 hours ago, The Pilotman69 said:

Biomes just get up-sized and textures the same.

This never ends well. All you'd get would be overstretched areas of nothing. If you simply upscale something you lose detail. And we're talking about 3D space here.

[Bej Kerman]

A simple solution would be to let you put the starting KSC on any planet you like. After all, why not? I remember mods that move the KSC were all the rage at one point and KSP 2 is putting emphasis on letting you build your own space centers. You can put yours on the Mun for an easy start, or start on Ovin for difficulty's sake and work your way to exploring Kerbol and other systems. As long as the KSC is a default base and not a special static model like KSP 1, then I don't see this being too cumbersome to implement.

Even better, if the KSC is handled as just another colony, then you could change how your KSC is kitted out from the start. I don't dabble with spaceplanes all that much, so save my soul if I ever dabble outside of sandbox, I could save funds not having a SPH in the first place. Even better-better, if you could start with just a root colony part so you don't have to go to the effort of dismantling your first KSC before building your custom one.