KSP Career Bug Insurance

[classyjakey]

If your veseel is destroyed by a kraken, get 90% of the funds of the ship back!

[LethalDose]

Bug insurance is already in the game. It's the "save function"

[HamShanky]

Bug insurance is already in the game. It's the "save function"

What about with the new difficulty settings, where you can't quicksave?

[Boomerang]

What about with the new difficulty settings, where you can't quicksave?

If it were me in that case, and what I do anyway, is set up a simple daily archiving of my persistence file. I use Automator on OSX to do it automatically, but you could do it manually, and I'm sure your operating system of choice has some sort of automating program.

Create an 'Archives' folder in your 'Saves' folder and copy your persistence.sfs into it daily, affixing the date of the copying.

And if that's too much work, there's a mod called AutoSave that will create numbered persistence backups within each save folder for you every time you enter the game. So if something gets borked during a flight and you can't revert/quick load, you could at least reload from the state of the last time you started the game. Which might not be entirely 'hardcore' difficulty, but I think it's fair enough for a game that does have it's fair share of bugs.

As for your original question, I have a feeling it would be rather difficult at a basic level to identify what flights were ruined by bugs versus some sort of user error in construction or piloting. If you look at the flightlog, plenty of bugs just register as collisions or structural failures. Which are also what comes up when the user messes up. How are you going to tell the difference? If it was as easy as the game saying 'ooh, that's a bug!' I think said bug would probably have already been dealt with in the first place.

[HamShanky]

If it were me in that case, and what I do anyway, is set up a simple daily archiving of my persistence file. I use Automator on OSX to do it automatically, but you could do it manually, and I'm sure your operating system of choice has some sort of automating program.

Create an 'Archives' folder in your 'Saves' folder and copy your persistence.sfs into it daily, affixing the date of the copying.

And if that's too much work, there's a mod called AutoSave that will create numbered persistence backups within each save folder for you every time you enter the game. So if something gets borked during a flight and you can't revert/quick load, you could at least reload from the state of the last time you started the game. Which might not be entirely 'hardcore' difficulty, but I think it's fair enough for a game that does have it's fair share of bugs.

As for your original question, I have a feeling it would be rather difficult at a basic level to identify what flights were ruined by bugs versus some sort of user error in construction or piloting. If you look at the flightlog, plenty of bugs just register as collisions or structural failures. Which are also what comes up when the user messes up. How are you going to tell the difference? If it was as easy as the game saying 'ooh, that's a bug!' I think said bug would probably have already been dealt with in the first place.

I was just being a wise A.S.S (I made a mechjeb funny)

No one in their right mind would ever want to complicate KSP. Quick-Saving is a part of KSP ingrained into everyone's mind. It is a very useful resource in almost every circumstance.

Only Klingons would like to make a game harder, just like they would tear their legs off in a combat situation, just to make the battle more challenging​.

[paul23]

" make a game harder" >> implying there's any difficult after the first initial know-how...

Really a hardcore feature is quite nice, though what would be best is a hardcore where you can "go back up to 5 mins", ie if you accidentally missclick and press speed up 100000 times..

[LethalDose]

What about with the new difficulty settings, where you can't quicksave?

First, I think if you're playing that you know is in development without a save function, you're acting foolishly, because of the the Kraken you yourself mention. The game is not guaranteed to be stable, play (with or without saves) at your own risk.

Second, you can reactivate the quick-save function in hardmode by changing the setting at the outset.

Third, just because you've deactivated the quick-save/load option doesn't mean you can't use the regular save/load through the escape menu.

Well #3 isn't true (I just tested it), which goes back to #1 & #2. In fact, the wording in the initial menu is rather misleading, since it says "disable quicksave", instead of saves in general.

Bottom line, until the game is out of beta, IMO Removing the ability to load saves, even in hard mode, is idiotic.

[classyjakey]

If it were me in that case, and what I do anyway, is set up a simple daily archiving of my persistence file. I use Automator on OSX to do it automatically, but you could do it manually, and I'm sure your operating system of choice has some sort of automating program.

Create an 'Archives' folder in your 'Saves' folder and copy your persistence.sfs into it daily, affixing the date of the copying.

And if that's too much work, there's a mod called AutoSave that will create numbered persistence backups within each save folder for you every time you enter the game. So if something gets borked during a flight and you can't revert/quick load, you could at least reload from the state of the last time you started the game. Which might not be entirely 'hardcore' difficulty, but I think it's fair enough for a game that does have it's fair share of bugs.

As for your original question, I have a feeling it would be rather difficult at a basic level to identify what flights were ruined by bugs versus some sort of user error in construction or piloting. If you look at the flightlog, plenty of bugs just register as collisions or structural failures. Which are also what comes up when the user messes up. How are you going to tell the difference? If it was as easy as the game saying 'ooh, that's a bug!' I think said bug would probably have already been dealt with in the first place.

By detecting if ship goes instantly from a slow speed to 60x speed of light