Did they make the game easier recently?

[ASnogarD]

Well I found it much easier... I dont seem to need half the struts to get my ships stable and into orbit.

My old fuel tanker design was 343 parts, I removed only the tank to tank or tank to engine struts and the part count dropped to 211 ... now without these struts the old version would of had the craft falling to pieces on the pad, this new version flew perfectly (except for one odd case of the orbiting stage where a engine fell off... have no idea why).

Thats a huge help, not needing to strut engines mounted to the bottom of tanks to the tanks, or strutting tanks together to keep them from popping off.

[rkman]

The point of fixing bugs is to fix bugs. It has nothing to do with difficulty because bugs go either way;

The argument is not that generally bug fixing makes it easier. This particular bug did go one particular way, it made things more difficult than KSP is supposed to be.

[sojourner]

Difficulty implies that you can do something about a problem if you have enough of a skillset to do it.

Ever heard the phrase "MOAR struts!"

A wobbly rocket caused by the SAS will wobble itself to pieces and randomly explode regardless of whatever skill you have at your disposal,

"moar struts"

so I fail to see how the wobbly SAS of previous versions had anything to do with difficulty.

"moar struts"?

You're arguing along the lines similar to saying that fixing the ship switching bug (that causes space stations to explode) makes the game easier.

Well, if people have to spend less time rebuilding stations.... then it's easier!

Bugs in the physics engine won't care if you are a skilled/unskilled player and will destroy your ship whenever it feels like it. How can this be regarded as a difficulty problem when the skill of the player has nothing to do with the outcome?

After the SAS was improved, as many will attest, rockets became easier to design and fly better. A lot less use of the "Moar struts!". It doesn't matter if you are skilled or unskilled. It's become easier for everybody. It's not about whether the bugs care or the physics engine cares, it's about the subjective experience of the players. Fixing this bug in particular made the game easier.

[Levelord]

Ever heard the phrase "MOAR struts!""moar struts""moar struts"?Well, if people have to spend less time rebuilding stations.... then it's easier! After the SAS was improved, as many will attest, rockets became easier to design and fly better. A lot less use of the "Moar struts!". It doesn't matter if you are skilled or unskilled. It's become easier for everybody. It's not about whether the bugs care or the physics engine cares, it's about the subjective experience of the players. Fixing this bug in particular made the game easier.

Moar struts ≠ Moar skill

I think you're confusing the word easier with convenient. If the issue is about spending less time on something, (like the dreaded 2-minute loading screen) then it's a welcome convenience to not have to deal with. Not needing to rebuild a space station that spontaneously explode because the SAS bug has been fixed, is an improvement in convenience. 'Easier' (in terms of skill difficulty) has nothing to do with it.

[rkman]

I think you're confusing the word easier with convenient. If the issue is about spending less time on something

Such nitpicking. The definition of the word "easy" is less narrow than you seem to think. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/easy Spending less time to achieve the same goal = less work/labor/effort/energy spend = "easier".

[sojourner]

Moar struts ≠ Moar skill I think you're confusing the word easier with convenient. If the issue is about spending less time on something, (like the dreaded 2-minute loading screen) then it's a welcome convenience to not have to deal with. Not needing to rebuild a space station that spontaneously explode because the SAS bug has been fixed, is an improvement in convenience. 'Easier' (in terms of skill difficulty) has nothing to do with it.

Now you've just devolved into pedantry. It's easier now. Regardless of skill (as I keep saying).

[Levelord]

Now you've just devolved into pedantry. It's easier now. Regardless of skill (as I keep saying).

I'd say semantics, but it's important to make that distinction because people will think that because it makes the game 'easier' it's an excuse to argue for the game's various bugs to not be fixed in the name of difficulty.

[rkman]

I'd say semantics, but it's important to make that distinction because people will think that because it makes the game 'easier' it's an excuse to argue for the game's various bugs to not be fixed in the name of difficulty.

I think people are generally less silly than you seem to think they are.

[Monkeh]

I have been playing since 0.20 and not much has changed for me. Flying takes a little more effort in my opinion than it did in 0.20 but I wouldn't say it was harder than the last version. Building stuff seems exactly the same. There you go, there's my vast experience laid out for you, I hope it wasn't too much to take.

[RawChicken]

The improved SAS has made the game easier. Before you had to switch off the SAS and reorient the vessel, then switch it ON again. This step caused the death of lots of little kerbals.

With the new SAS, you just let it ON and move if you want to, everything is more stable and easier.

[Exposure]

I think people are generally less silly than you seem to think they are.

From an outsider perspective that is kinda what your's and Sojourner's posts sounded like.

I mean, I would say that 2012 XCOM and Sonic 2006 could have around the same level of difficulty in a very broad sense, except XCOM does it by providing the challenge of keeping pace with the aliens as they start relatively strong and just grow from there while you start off with basic weapons that pale in comparisons to what they got, but the game will do its best to provide the knowledge you need in order to fight effectively along with providing a generally cooperative UI and camera, while Sonic 2006 provides "challenge" in the sense that you will be struggling against the terrible controls (have fun doing 3D platforming when everything feels like someone just typed down settings that seemed right and called it a day), the terrible camera (3D platforming, with an inability to see where you're actually going!), the terrible gameplay decisions (instadeath vacuuming balls that appear in locations you will barely be able to see before they form, placed in a set of levels that will result in you doing them over and over and over for hours ), etc etc.

In other words, one of these games provide challenge in the sense that it's fun to try your best in the game, even if you'll lose here and there along the way, you don't feel like you've just been asked to do something unreasonable. The other one provides challenge in the sense that it feels like someone just asked you to sit on an angry honey badger for six hours. They may result in the same level of difficulty being delivered, but one of these does it in the far more optimal and least customer losing way.

And so far it seems like all the changes in KSP have been to ensure the challenge being delivered is the former rather than the latter. (Granted it wasn't much of the latter in the first place but there's always room for improvement somewhere.)