More Gameplay features

[Noah_Blade]

1. Complexity and failure rate

okay each part adds complexity to a craft. the higher complexity the higher failure rate,

engineers reduce complexity by 25% per engineer.

2. failure types

Rapid Unplanned disassembly aka engine go boom, from overheat due to loss of coolant, pressure too low, etc.

solar panel stuck, plain and simple...

decoupler failure, decoupler breaks into semi circle and may stick to craft or fall awry at a later stage in flight.

fairing half deploy,again very simply fairy only partially deployed.

3.complexity change...

as stages drop so does complexity.

4.Sliders

difficulty options for failure rate.

5. improvements

as the scientist kerbalnaut uses a part more [uses it in flight while in craft] the complexity will very slowly drop.

6.pilot error...

in the first few flights of a kerbalnaut they may turn off your control, and it will be useful for a override switch aka probe core.

7. training

about 6,... this will give another reason for planes as it will train them and will be useful for crewed missions later on

as you dont need an override for a apollo mission...

8. Career

all these will be an option i career mode.

[juvilado]

I think the game is difficult enough and we fail often enough to add more chances for a craft to fail, although this is a realistic option, id never consider it for most players, just for masochists!!

[Grumman]

Failure should not happen unless you do something stupid. Not when a six year mission to Laythe could be ruined by a string of pure RNG.

If you want random failure, this is how I'd do it:

Assign every individual part a number between 0 and 30 when you spawn it. Whenever the game checks a part's Maximum Temperature, Impact Tolerance or Maximum Speed, instead add that number as a percentage before you perform the check. For example, a RoveMax Model M1 wheel has a known heat tolerance of 1200K, impact tolerance of 50 m/s and speed tolerance of 60 m/s, but if you're lucky it could be anything up to 1560K, 65 m/s and 78 m/s. If you feel like pushing your luck you can take advantage of that, but if you try to push the parts above their recommended tolerances it might blow up in your face.

[pandaman]

Random failure would be a no go for me too.

I like Grumman's idea of 'random increased toughness' if an element of randomness were to be included. But I don't think it would add enough to game play to be worth it.

[Kaos]

I like the idea, as long as one can turn this feature off. The randomized maximal tolerances are even better.

[Tankman101]

Everybody loves arbitrary failures with no feedback whatsoever!

[Kaos]

Nothing was about "no feedback". Well, if you prefer it without feedback there might be a way to ignore it, but you sound more sarcastic without the imagination that someone else indeed might like it.

The Falcon 9-Rocket for example can reach orbit with the loss of one arbitrary engine. I think it might be fun to build a rocket in KSP that can do the same and to test that. But of course only as long as this feature can be disabled.

[Grumman]

I like Grumman's idea of 'random increased toughness' if an element of randomness were to be included. But I don't think it would add enough to game play to be worth it.

You could also assign negative numbers to experimental parts (between 0 and -20) if you wanted to make it more risky to exploit testing contracts for unlimited free copies of an untested prototype.

[r4pt0r]

Please under no circumstances implement random failures. Thats really just a bad Idea.

[Tankman101]

Nothing was about "no feedback". Well, if you prefer it without feedback there might be a way to ignore it, but you sound more sarcastic without the imagination that someone else indeed might like it.

The Falcon 9-Rocket for example can reach orbit with the loss of one arbitrary engine. I think it might be fun to build a rocket in KSP that can do the same and to test that. But of course only as long as this feature can be disabled.

Arbitrary failures by their nature provide no useful feedback. They are arbitrary, purely the device of RNGesus himself. There is nothing to be gained from knowing what failed other than "RNG KILLED IT SON!".

As for the Falcon 9, KSP doesn't have the tools to replicate the failsafe for that (Opposite engine shutting off automatically) and besides, IRL those are mechanical failures only very rarely arbitrary in nature (Not enough maintenance, shoddy construction, GLORIOUS RUSSIAN PROGRAMMING, etc).

With this it's just hoping RNG doesn't mess with your flight . There's nothing to prevent it, just sitting and waiting.

[Vanamonde]

Random failures is one of the suggestions that has been put forth so many times that it has been added to our list of things not to suggest again, so this thread will be closed now. And by the way, Squad has stateed that they hate the idea, and will not add it to the game.