have we discussed how bankruptcy is impossible in 0.24 as it is?

[JimmyAgent007]

I like the idea that the "Guy In Charge" gets canned if you fail too much or go totally broke. Still get the feeling of a failed game without the loss of everything you worked on.

[Alshain]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that, although you get an advance of funds for contracts, there is actually a failure penalty that is more than the advance. If you take a bunch of contracts for the advances and then fail them, you are seriously going to be in the hole.

Yes, but your going to be given contracts that are almost impossible to fail at that point. Mission Objective: Launch a ship. If even the noobiest (is that a word?) of beginners can't launch a ship then they shouldn't be playing the game in the first place. The argument is whether or not this should be a casual game or not. I'm in favor of a casual game with objectives (i.e. contracts). Others disagree. There is no wrong opinion but what I don't think should happen is ruin the game for people that like it casual just to please the people that like a failure option. If that's desired, either 1. Make it a mod, or 2. Have a hardcore game mode where that is possible. What not an option is to force all casual players to do sandbox only.

[Sirrobert]

While you might never truely run out of money, if you blow it all on SRBs and have to come by from the forward money on contracts, it'd put a sure stop to your side projects.

So you might not go bankrupt, you'd be limiting yourself severely in things you can do

[EdFred]

Why don't you play in sandbox mode, I want career mode. I want to do contracts and I can do persistence just fine in a career mode game. I just don't want my game that I spent hours on to have the ability to become completely unusable. Better yet, why don't you just go play FTL instead of trying to turn this game into FTL. It doesn't matter because Squad will never implement this anyway, it's all theoretical.

That's called sandbox mode. You think you should be able to screw up every mission/contract and still have a career? That too, is called sandbox mode.

[Alshain]

That's called sandbox mode. You think you should be able to screw up every mission/contract and still have a career? That too, is called sandbox mode.

No, it's called casual gameplay (I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, please read people). Sandbox mode doesn't have contracts, or science, and all the parts are available at once. There is a difference between sandbox and casual gameplay.

[goldenpsp]

I havent read all 11 pages, but I don't see an issue with the fact that you cannot go totally broke and lose (having to start again from the beginning) while at the same time getting so low on funds that you might have to run menial contracts to rebuild your funds for better contracts. I think it is a nice balance.

Kinda like another space game I play, being EVE Online. In that game even if you lose everything and have no money, you can always dock and get a rookie ship for free. it has one gun and one mining laser. It would be a slow painful process but it is just enough to slowly rebuild your money.

[EdFred]

No, it's called casual gameplay (I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, please read people). Sandbox mode doesn't have contracts, or science, and all the parts are available at once. There is a difference between sandbox and casual gameplay.

Sorry, no repercussions is called sandbox mode. What's the point of having contracts and reputation if you fail to complete *any* of them, if there is absolutely zero down side to it? Oh, you killed 27 Kerbals in your last 4 launches? No problem, here's another hundred thousand credits, and 300 science. Good job. We'll send some more contracts over for you to screw up. If you want to screw up over and over and over and no have any downside to it, it's called a sandbox.

[tetryds]

Noone said it should be a single mistake.

All that was suggested was adding an end game if player repetitevly fails in achieving presented goals. It should be a chain of events that leads to the game over screen, not a single mistake like you suggest.

and if you still can't stand it - play sandbox mode. Seeing that your main interest is in building up a persistent world - you'd be better off toying in a sandbox anyway.

This^

Just bringing this up once more:

You can take the risk once, and fail.

Take it again, and fail.

Take it a third time, and fail again.

Then you get on a situation where you can't afford a fourth fail.

There, you take your risk for real, or go for something easier.

Fourth was an example, the best you are the more "fallback rep" you would have.

[JimmyAgent007]

If your rep is in the toilet you wouldnt get massive contracts worth that much. But a good middle ground between both sides of this debate is an Iron Man Mode. turned off it tells you the director has been replaced or whatever. Turned on is a sad jeb standing outside KSC with a CLOSED sign on the door.

[Alshain]

Sorry, no repercussions is called sandbox mode. What's the point of having contracts and reputation if you fail to complete *any* of them, if there is absolutely zero down side to it? Oh, you killed 27 Kerbals in your last 4 launches? No problem, here's another hundred thousand credits, and 300 science. Good job. We'll send some more contracts over for you to screw up. If you want to screw up over and over and over and no have any downside to it, it's called a sandbox.

There is a repercussion/down side, you won't be able to build expensive ships if you don't earn money. If you fail your contracts you don't get to go to the Mun or Minmus or anywhere else. It's not sandbox if you still have to complete objectives to progress.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Alshain

[MiniMatt]

Sorry, no repercussions is called sandbox mode. What's the point of having contracts and reputation if you fail to complete *any* of them, if there is absolutely zero down side to it? Oh, you killed 27 Kerbals in your last 4 launches? No problem, here's another hundred thousand credits, and 300 science. Good job. We'll send some more contracts over for you to screw up. If you want to screw up over and over and over and no have any downside to it, it's called a sandbox.

But nobody is saying no repercussions - they're saying no "game over, start again from scratch".

It's pretty clear there will be repercussions, along the lines of restrictions to free reign, limited choice of basic contracts until funds and reputation recover. And that level of repercussion is something I'm fine with - the space agency might suffer temporary restrictions, but the space agency will not be shut down.

[allmhuran]

I think there's a bit too much fear of difficulty in KSP (both in the community, and to some extent over at Squad).

Starcraft is a difficult game. It requires multitasking, fast reflexes, ultra high dexterity, a good understanding of the dozens of different units, and economy management. And there are 13 year old pro level starcraft players.

First person shooters are difficult games. They require map knowledge, fast reflexes, high dexterity and in the case of team based multiplayer, coordination and cooperation. And I'm willing to bet every kid with a computer or console has played and enjoyed a first person shooter.

The fact that starcraft is a complex game has not stopped millions of people from happily playing it at a "casual" level.

KSP is not a difficult game to play. The controls are simple. It might take a few tries to get your head around orbital mechanics at first, but a passing familiarity is enough to overcome that. When I earned over 10,000 science on a starting parts launch the only math I did was half an hour from the end (8 hours in) to ensure I had enough fuel to land on Ike and still get back to Kerbin.

KSP doesn't require the reflexes or dexterity. It doesn't require cooperation. It doesn't require a deep understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of different components, or advanced knowledge of engineering. Sure, a "well built" ship might be able to do more than a poorly built one, but you can get to LKO with a command pod, a half-orange tank, and an LVT30.

Heck, there was a reddit post with a picture of someone's 5 year old child sending a rocket to orbit. Did you know that Squad was originally hesitant to add the whole "orbital mechanics" bit to the game because they were worried it would be too complex?

[Sandworm]

I think there's a bit too much fear of difficulty in KSP (both in the community, and to some extent over at Squad).[...] Did you know that Squad was originally hesitant to add the whole "orbital mechanics" bit to the game because they were worried it would be too complex?

You got that right. I think it stems from Squad's worry that intimidating new/young player will prevent sales. The underestimate kids. Those who are intimidated by KSP probably stick to phones and consoles.

I don't see fear in the community so much as ego. All the fear about funds, recoverable parts and the new mission structure does not come from fear of not completing the mission. It comes from frankly expert players who take any new mechanic as an affront to their mastery of the game. Just look at the demands for absolute information regarding parts recovery. Everyone knows that the contracts will be ridiculously easy, but they demand the info on the mechanics of recovering every nut and bold from the moment the update drops. They don't fear the difficulty per se. They fear that brief period when they are no longer in total control of the kerbin universe.

If you really want to see them scream, add some sort of random element to the financial game. "Due to financial downturn, you've just lost half your funds." Or "Due to environmental worries, you cannot use SRBs until the birds migrate away from the KSC".

Edited July 17, 2014 by Sandworm

[tetryds]

You got that right. I think it stems from Squad's worry that intimidating new/young player will prevent sales. The underestimate kids. Those who are intimidated by KSP probably stick to phones and consoles.

I don't see fear in the community so much as ego. All the fear about funds, recoverable parts and the new mission structure does not come from fear on not completing the mission. It comes from frankly expert players who take it as any new mechanic as an affront to their mastery of the game. Just look at the demands for absolute information regarding parts recovery. Everyone knows that the contracts will be ridiculously easy, but they demand the info on the mechanics of recovering every nut and bold from the moment the update drops. They don't fear the difficulty per se. They fear that brief period when they are no longer in total control of the kerbin universe.

I could not agree more.

Never underestimate KSP players.

As I quote myself: "If we feared failure we would not be playing KSP."

All I want is please, let me fail.

edit: plus the fact that simply by leaving the quickload option activated you could rewind the mission which can have led you to a unfixable disaster.

[Alshain]

Well it's really irrelevant at this point. Squad made their decision already and that's how it will be in 0.24 and based on the comments FAQ, they won't remove the way 0.24 works, they didn't even remove the way 0.23 works (Science mode). So if they do add a failure option (which I want to stress if I didn't make it clear earlier, I am not totally against it) then it will likely be exactly as I suggested earlier, a special hardcore mode while leaving the existing mode in 0.24 intact.

[tetryds]

Well it's really irrelevant at this point. Squad made their decision already and that's how it will be in 0.24 and based on the comments FAQ, they won't remove the way 0.24 works, they didn't even remove the way 0.23 works (Science mode). So if they do add a failure option (which I want to stress if I didn't make it clear earlier, I am not totally against it) then it will likely be exactly as I suggested earlier, a special hardcore mode while leaving the existing mode in 0.24 intact.

We are not requesting it now, nor that it should be forced, we just want it.

[Sky_walker]

More like: the current mode should become an easy mode, while what you call "hardcore" should be a default one.

[Alshain]

We are not requesting it now, nor that it should be forced, we just want it.

Not everybody was, but some people were apparently offended that I suggested it be in a special hardcore mode. That was my original post in this thread and the immediate replies were "you should play sandbox", which obviously suggests they did want it forced.

More like: the current mode should become an easy mode, while what you call "hardcore" should be a default one.

Science only would be easy, this could be medium and failure could be hard. Though to be honest, what they call it is my least concern.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Alshain

[Temeter]

What are you talking about? Kerbal Space Programm can be difficult as hell for newcomers, there is a lot of stuff which takes time, experience and learning. Childrens are better than everyone else at learning, btw.

Take the first time getting to space, orbiting, moon landing, rendezvous-maneuver, docking (especially bigger ships), interplanetary travel, space planes, etc. That stuff can be extremly hard to achieve and you just might fail time and time again. Now it's mostly routine for us, since we can see the simplicity and logic behind all these things.

This game is basically building on the idea that failure is important and a means to learn. And you will fail a lot getting to there where we are. For SQUAD the most important thing is that failing is fun. And just running out of funds, loosing your safe you built a month on isn't for most people (and neither for me after almost 2 years). Even roguelikes mostly rely on runs being relatively short. So allowing people to get back into career after failing is most important for the early versions of this mode.

Everything else can be changed in the options, carrer is supposed to be very customizable, so everyone gets the experience he want. There are already a lot of options allowing you to go full iron-man mode on your missions, in the first carrer update. On this basis it's absurd to argue SQUAD tries to make the game easy for everyone. And if it's not hardcore enough? Let them know, they e.g. included the 64 bit version early just because of community feedback! Otherwise there are a lot of mods making the career as hard or masochistic as we might want it.

I think it's a bit to early to complain SQUAD is going in the wrong directions with career, when not even the first and most basic version of it is out yet.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Temeter

[Sandworm]

Well, I'd say they added win64 because the community "feedback" was along the lines of "You said it wasn't possible, but we just did it." I'm not sure we could guilt Squad into including a game over state. They admit it possible and have chosen not to include such a thing.

One of the more respected youtubers out there (NerdCubed) put it plainly: "for a game to be a game it must have a failure state". He was speaking of free-to-play games where realworld money can pull you out of any problem. If KSP wants to be a game, specifically the "tycoon" game Squad advertises, then it needs a failure state. Without a failure state KSP is just a simulator, and not a particularly accurate one. That will confine it to a combination niche of spacesim fans much as train and airplane simulators. I'm not sure that many customers play KSP for the wacky rockets. They can watch that on youtube.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Sandworm

[allmhuran]

Childrens are better than everyone else at learning, btw.

Just to be sure I completely understand what you mean here, are you arguing that a 5 year old being able to play Kerbal Space Program is indicative of just how absurdly difficult the game is?

[Matrix Aran]

Well, I'd say they added win64 because the community "feedback" was along the lines of "You said it wasn't possible, but we just did it." I'm not sure we could guilt Squad into including a game over state. They admit it possible and have chosen not to include such a thing.

One of the more respected youtubers out there (NerdCubed) put it plainly: "for a game to be a game it must have a failure state". He was speaking of free-to-play games where realworld money can pull you out of any problem. If KSP wants to be a game, specifically the "tycoon" game Squad advertises, then it needs a failure state. Without a failure state KSP is just a simulator, and not a particularly accurate one. That will confine it to a combination niche of spacesim fans much as train and airplane simulators. I'm not sure that many customers play KSP for the wacky rockets. They can watch that on youtube.

See I've been reading over comments like these in this thread and something kept nagging at me. Perhaps its just me but I thought the game was doing quite well already. It seems to have been selling well on steam, there are countless people putting effort into designing stock craft and mods, and plenty of folks on Youtube and Twitch taking time out of their lives to make videos of something they find cool.

And these folks are all playing .23.5, which doesn't even have a contracts system implemented.

In fact, .24 is apparently going to include a science mode for those that want the current game system to stay as it is. The devs at SQUAD I believe are well aware that different folks like to play KSP different ways, and they'd like to cater to as many as they can. .24 isn't the end of development, I can see contracts getting more love in the future, and eventually a failure state will make it into the game. And before then, I'm quite sure someone will manage to mod one in.

Point being, I think this thread really is making a mountain out of a molehill, and at a guess, I'd say its being fueled by boredom at not having .24 yet.

[goldenpsp]

Well, I'd say they added win64 because the community "feedback" was along the lines of "You said it wasn't possible, but we just did it." I'm not sure we could guilt Squad into including a game over state. They admit it possible and have chosen not to include such a thing.

One of the more respected youtubers out there (NerdCubed) put it plainly: "for a game to be a game it must have a failure state". He was speaking of free-to-play games where realworld money can pull you out of any problem. If KSP wants to be a game, specifically the "tycoon" game Squad advertises, then it needs a failure state. Without a failure state KSP is just a simulator, and not a particularly accurate one. That will confine it to a combination niche of spacesim fans much as train and airplane simulators. I'm not sure that many customers play KSP for the wacky rockets. They can watch that on youtube.

With due respect, the respected youtuber is flat out wrong. There are plenty of games, successful ones at that, which have no "failure" state. Many will have a state where you end up with almost nothing, but will still give you the basic beginner tool/weapon/etc to allow you to dig back out of your hole.

[Alshain]

I'd say its being fueled by boredom at not having .24 yet.

Amen to that!

[Sky_walker]

Amen to that!

Said by one of the most active people in that entire topic.

I laughed.