Difficulty options

[StrandedonEarth]

What I would like to see in the final release are difficulty options. There are those who believe things like life support should be in the stock game, while others think that would be no fun, and I can see the merits of both views. The best way would be to simply have difficulty options, set when a save is created. A fresh install should make the game as easy as possible, so new players are not overwhelmed. Seasoned players can breathe new life into the game by turning on the difficulty options. Players already do that by installing mods, as I did. Players generally hope their favorite mods are adapted into the final version anyways. Feel free to add whatever options I missed.

Difficulty options could/would/should include:

Aerodynamics: Simple/real (FAR)

Aerodynamic heating: On/off (Deadly Reentry)

Life Support: On/Off (adjust consumption rates) (TAC LS)

G-tolerance, impact tolerance (sliders)

Kerbal Respawn On/Off

Cost of parts (slider)

Universal docking ports On/Off

Now, what'd I miss?

[cpast]

No. Please don't make every save show the user a mass of options to pick before they can play. I know it's a thing around here to say "the game shouldn't force you into any method of play", but at some point that has to stop and actual decisions need to be made about what the game will be. This applies especially to things like aero (it's nonsensical to have two separate physics models in the same game; the same craft should respond to control input the same in all stock copies of the game), cost (that's a balancing decision that actually needs to be made, and shouldn't be punted to end-users; if you want no cost, that's what sandbox is for, but it shouldn't be a slider), impact tolerance (again, shouldn't be a slider - at most, one impact tolerance and the option to turn off parts breaking), and the like.

Game design decisions should not be left to users to pick and choose. The game should ship with one or more (at the moment there are two) well-defined sets of rules, all of which are playtested. They should differ meaningfully; there shouldn't be "X" and "X with life support". Customizing the game is the proper domain of mods, not of stock.

EDIT: That's not to say all choices are bad. But every single choice you make in a game is the game developer punting something to you. In most cases, that something actually *is* the game - choosing what engine to use is core gameplay, which is why Squad gives you the choice between various engines instead of just saying "You'll use the LV-T30 and you will like it." Other options are not really the game at all - options screens tend to have control selection (insanely dependent on personal preference, and has no effect on the game), video options (some people like the many options there, and what your system can handle is particular to your system [though presets are nice and also common, because not everyone knows what the options all mean]), etc.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not make a decision, and tell the users to make it instead. But it should be a meaningful decision wherever humanly possible. Sandbox vs. career is meaningful - do you want to just build and fly rockets to explore at your own pace, or do you want to manage a space *program*, seeing it go from humble origins to wherever you will take it? Those sorts of things are nice. Micromanaging options, not so nice - that means the designers haven't actually *designed* a game, they're just making you do it for them.

Edited June 17, 2014 by cpast

[r4pt0r]

No. Please don't make every save show the user a mass of options to pick before they can play. I know it's a thing around here to say "the game shouldn't force you into any method of play", but at some point that has to stop and actual decisions need to be made about what the game will be. This applies especially to things like aero (it's nonsensical to have two separate physics models in the same game; the same craft should respond to control input the same in all stock copies of the game), cost (that's a balancing decision that actually needs to be made, and shouldn't be punted to end-users; if you want no cost, that's what sandbox is for, but it shouldn't be a slider), impact tolerance (again, shouldn't be a slider - at most, one impact tolerance and the option to turn off parts breaking), and the like.

Game design decisions should not be left to users to pick and choose. The game should ship with one or more (at the moment there are two) well-defined sets of rules, all of which are playtested. They should differ meaningfully; there shouldn't be "X" and "X with life support". Customizing the game is the proper domain of mods, not of stock.

agreed

A fresh install should make the game as easy as possible

gotta disagree.

if your first experience with sim city had infinite money enabled, that would be awful.

if your first experience in a first person shooter had god mode enabled, that would be awful.

games are supposed to offer challenge.

[StrandedonEarth]

It doesn't need to show all the options while creating the save; it just needs to show that difficulty options are available, much as in Combat Flight Simulator 3. Just a button to push to bring up the difficulty menu, which should include "Easy" "Medium" and "Hard" buttons for pre-defined difficulty options, and a "Custom" option for players to pick and choose what they want. Perhaps the difficulty options could also be available after the save is created; that's debatable, as is what options should actually be available.

[StrandedonEarth]

agreed

gotta disagree.

if your first experience with sim city had infinite money enabled, that would be awful.

if your first experience in a first person shooter had god mode enabled, that would be awful.

games are supposed to offer challenge.

Perhaps I should have worded it better. Easy mode would turn off life support and DRE. Maybe those are the only options needed.

I thought I'd cast a wide net for difficulty options. It seems it's too wide, when you factor in sandbox vs career. My main point was that new players would probably have enough to deal with without DRE or life support, as those first few landings are challenging enough.

[cpast]

I'm not sure why, honestly. If you give the capsules enough life support to last for a complete transfer orbit to and from the Mun, new players have time to acclimate to life support in their first, getting-into-orbit missions. Likewise for re-entry: players already have to stick parachutes on to survive, heatshields are similar.

[sumghai]

I concur that most, if not all, of your suggestions should not be available as difficulty options - many add-ons that fulfill these needs do so to address shortcomings / missing features with the current iteration of the game, and are not merely artificial diffculty barriers.

[StrandedonEarth]

My first post was mostly just brainstorming; with feedback and time for reflection, I can see the problems. Take 2:

I see no reason not to have a full slate of options in sandbox mode, having fun is what sandbox is all about. If I want to send an un-aerodynamic behemoth screaming through the atmosphere of Kerbin/Laythe/Jool without it blowing up, why not? It's fun! Slamming nearly-unbreakable crafts into terrain/structures should be fun too. And if I want to send a kerbal to Eeloo without worrying about the snack supply, I should be able to.

Career mode, OTOH, okay, I guess that doesn't NEED difficulty options, but would it really hurt? Career mode could be a choice of Easy (higher impact tolerance, no aero-heating or life support,) Medium (standard everything,) or Hard (low impact tolerance, hungry kerbals, more expensive parts, maybe hotter re-entries)

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

If the devs implement this, I bet you people will make mods for them to be turned off.

[AlamoVampire]

the way things are, are, well, fine. At some point, things like DRE and Life Support <i think> probably will become standard non mod added features <i hope> and should not be able to be turned off. Cost? That should crop up in .24 iirc. The game can already be made as hard as you like or as EASY as you like. Dont get into the wires and short out the controls before we see what Squad does shall we?

[Oafman]

KSP is a very hard game to learn. Without the additional challenges of FAR, DRE and LS.

I'm finding it more than enough challenge right now without them, though I do plan to implement them one at a time as my understanding of how to play the game improves.

So I think they have to be optional. That is of course the case right now, but if squad does implement them into career mode, I don't see how the game can remain accessible to novices unless they can be switched off. Almost every game ever made has difficulty levels.

[Eric S]

At some point, things like DRE and Life Support <i think> probably will become standard non mod added features <i hope> and should not be able to be turned off.

While they've changed their minds and may change it again (or may have already done so), the last time I heard a dev comment on adding stock reentry heat, they said that it would be something that could be turned off. Sadly, I can't reference it because it occurred during the lost months after the great oops.

[Pulstar]

Yeah, I remember that they said that about stock reentry heat as well. And there has also been talk of a "hardcore mode" on more than one occasion by squad.

A better question is what is difficulty? How do you turn something into a challenge rather than into a grind? What would a "hardcore" or "manley mode" mode feature over normal difficulty?

Quicksave/load disabled for such a mode makes sense.

Kerbal permadeath.

A different tech tree (probes first?).

Excessive g-forces killing kerbals.

Bigger reputation hits for losing Kerbals.

Lower monetary rewards for contracts.

Making some mechanics tied to a higher difficulty level isn't necessarily a bad idea, but the question is what they should be? Life support is one I can think off although it depends on the specific mechanics. If it's not too complicated I see no reason for it not be included in stock as a "basic" or "normal" difficulty level system.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd rather the physics options be the same in all games. Having optional physics makes it hard to help a newbie diagnose ship problems or offer working ship designs to them. Have difficulty levels set by varying multipliers for science, money and reputation received.

[cpast]

I'd rather the physics options be the same in all games. Having optional physics makes it hard to help a newbie diagnose ship problems or offer working ship designs to them. Have difficulty levels set by varying multipliers for science, money and reputation received.

This. The same craft should behave the same way in all games.

[dryer_lint]

I agree with being able to enable/disable deadly reentry, Kerbal re-spawn, and life support, but the others... aerodynamics should just be changed to FAR aerodynamics, cost of parts shouldn't really be changed IMO, and as for the sliders, that seems too complex. Like they said, a difficulty level is good, but not a jumble of options and things. Partial support.

[cpast]

Why enable/disable life support? Do probes let you enable/disable an electricity requirement?

[dryer_lint]

Why enable/disable life support? Do probes let you enable/disable an electricity requirement?

Hmm... good point. I guess it's a lot easier to supply electricity to probes, while kerbals would require a whole "snacks module" for interplanetary trips. Then again, same thing happens in real life, but it would take the fun out of KSP! I know we want it to be realistic, but there's something inspiring about landing your kerbals on another planet or moon, if life support was added, it would all be probe-based... again, like in real life

[Pulstar]

Ultimately you have to ask yourself how does decreased rewards make the game harder rather than more grindy? Less money from contracts is not an issue, financial budget limitations have a direct effect on what you can do to solve a task so that is indeed a challenge related to craft and mission profile design. You can either grind or become more efficient in designing spacecrafts/missions (you can't eliminate grinding, but you can allow players to mitigate it by smart thinking).

Not sure how to apply this to science. I rather have something limit your ability to do science/experiments than merely scaling down rewards. Money will already affect that, science parts won't be (or shouldn't be) cheap. Having both science and money scale with difficulty level would be redundant because they're already both related/connected.

[Nobody]

I have always thought a modular difficulty system would be a great addition. There are many mods like deadly reentry and life support which are popular enough that squad will likely add them to the stock eventually but would crank up the difficulty of the game to the point where new players could be driven off.

[LethalDose]

Why enable/disable life support? Do probes let you enable/disable an electricity requirement?

No, and I've seen dozens of posts complaining that "probes are useless". Enabling life support allows mechanical differentiation between probes and manned craft for those who have that opinion, and leaving the option off can be for those who don't. Really the point here is to allow players to choose their experience.

If the devs implement this, I bet you people will make mods for them to be turned off.

These features would be optional. There would be no need for mods to turn them "off".

No. Please don't make every save show the user a mass of options to pick before they can play. [Clipped remainder]

The options could be accessed in the game, and wouldn't have to be decided on at the start of the game. Lots of games allow players to change difficulty methods on the fly. In a game with persistence like KSP, there would be some issues (e.g. turning life support on while manned missions are in progress), but there are loads of ways to work around those.

Or, the options did need to be set at the start of a new save, there could be an "additional options" button that players could push and select and new players could ignore.

These kinds of options are very common in Firaxis games. Both Civilization V (and other Civ titles) and X-Com: Enemy Within did a fantastic job of this and were very well received by gamers.

I'd rather the physics options be the same in all games. Having optional physics makes it hard to help a newbie diagnose ship problems or offer working ship designs to them. Have difficulty levels set by varying multipliers for science, money and reputation received.

I understand this point of view. I'm assuming the "physics options" you're referring to are the aerodynamic model and re-entry heat/damage. I would counter-point, however, that it seems very common for "newbies" to be using mods, and to help diagnose problems, we currently have to ask "what mods are you using?". If we had these "physics options", we would instead just be asking "what mods are you using and what options do you have active". Personally, I don't see much of a difference.

Edited June 17, 2014 by LethalDose

[Eric S]

I have always thought a modular difficulty system would be a great addition.

The devs agree with you, or at least did last time they discussed difficulty settings. They weren't interested in having a single difficulty setting, but rather having certain options that could be turned on or off. Reentry heat and life support are two of the things that they discussed that, if implemented, could be disabled this way. Yes, there's a lot of if/could type words there, I wouldn't count on both making it into the stock game. In fact, the only time they discussed life support favorably, they were also talking about resource mining, so I wouldn't be surprised if no resources means no life support.

As for the "hassle" of having to set a bunch of options, I don't see it that way if done well. First, at worst, you'd only have to deal with them when you create a save file or want to alter the settings. I probably create one or two save files a week at most, except for the week a new version comes out. Second, most games I play that have these kinds of settings instead of a strict difficulty setting give you two or three buttons, one for a game with default settings, one for a game with the previous settings, and one for "OK, let me specify everything." Since we don't currently have to reset key bindings, audio settings, etc. every time we create a save file, I don't see why we would assume that the difficulty settings couldn't be persistent either.

[StrandedonEarth]

As per the aerodynamics model: I only recently started using FAR, so I don't have a lot of experience with it. I understand FAR discourages (or makes impossible, not sure) pancake-style rockets. Which begs the question: Is it even possible to get Whackjob-style gargantuosities into orbit in FAR, without hyperedit? If not, that alone would be one reason why the current stock aerodynamics model should be available. Of course, someone would probably make a mod for the current stock aerodynamics model when the Devs overhaul the aerodynamics.

[StrandedonEarth]

snip

These kinds of options are very common in Firaxis games. Both Civilization V (and other Civ titles) and X-Com: Enemy Within did a fantastic job of this and were very well received by gamers.

snip

Yes, the option menus in Civ (I've only played Civ IV) are pretty much what I had in mind. As well as the realism options in CFS3 (which included infinite fuel/ammo , and g-force causing aircraft damage or grey/black/redouts, amongst other options. But just to make it interesting fuel was no longer infinite once there was a hole in the tank!)

Sure, probes require electricity, but once you have RTG's then power is infinite. Which I suppose life support could be once all the recyclers are installed and powered (I haven't tried that yet.)

[Eric S]

As per the aerodynamics model: I only recently started using FAR, so I don't have a lot of experience with it. I understand FAR discourages (or makes impossible, not sure) pancake-style rockets. Which begs the question: Is it even possible to get Whackjob-style gargantuosities into orbit in FAR, without hyperedit? If not, that alone would be one reason why the current stock aerodynamics model should be available. Of course, someone would probably make a mod for the current stock aerodynamics model when the Devs overhaul the aerodynamics.

I doubt using FAR would inhibit Whackjob much. I've launched my fair share of monstrosities with FAR enabled. At the worst case, it usually involved a lower TWR and/or some extra delta-v so I could take things slow. To me, FAR feels more like it's about rewarding doing it right than punishing doing it wrong.

Personally, I'm in favor of being able to turn reentry heat or life support on or off as an option, but not better aerodynamics. In the former two cases, it's strictly disabling some functionality. With aerodynamics, you're switching between functionality. Or to put it another way, reentry heat probably means you add a heat shield. Life support might mean adding storage for life support resources. Changing the way aerodynamics works means potentially undoing something in order to make it work differently. So it's the difference between learning new things and unlearning bad habits combined with learning new things.