Random failures

[*Aqua*]

Randomness isn't a good game mechanic if you don't give the player means to somehow counter it. That'll be difficult in KSP because usually almost every part of a rocket is critical for success. If there would be a failure somewhere it'll mean the rocket instantly turns into junk.

To be at the mercy of the RNGod is a bad thing.

Edited January 3, 2016 by *Aqua*

[glen.mack]

I don't know what game you're playing, but the physics engine causes my rockets to explode on the runway/launchpad on load. This more than enough random failure for my part.

[Evanitis]

2 hours ago, *Aqua* said:

To be at the mercy of the RNGod is a bad thing.

I'm aware that most people feel that way, thus I get why it shouldn't be a stock feature. But there are others who feel that limitations and difficulties add to the challenge, what increases the fun-factor. My favorite KSP times were the ones when I realized my design mistakes too late, but managed to work around the complications. Sadly as I'm getting better, the less often such interesting situations happen.

I'm yet to try a career with one of the failure mods, but I totally added it to my list of stuff to do in KSP... Guess it will be best with KIS. I envision big repair-stations with hangars full of essential spare parts at the planets-of-interest. Shuttles with engineers who can replace engines on stranded ships. Also... stations and supply runs with actual purpose? Hell, I wanna start today.

Sadly, I'm not conviced that either of the two mods mentioned is exactly what I'm looking for. TestFlight would be very appealing with the increasing reliability feature, but if I read it right, it only affects atmospheric flight... naw, spaceplanes are hard enough, and I want glitches on my Jool transfers of so. Dangit users seems to find the failure rate too high. Hope that's a stock~ish impression, and my plan with KIS-repair stations will soften the edge of the mod.

And yes, what I will miss the most is sliders to tweak failure-rates on different part-types. I probably prefered more failures on utility parts than on engines, not to mention the couplers.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Evanitis

[Waxing_Kibbous]

Just to add to my previous thought of varying levels of difficulty: If this were a simple works/doesn't work case it would be no fun- IMO randomness can be good as long as it isn't to the extreme. The randomness can vary- 100% failure is rare, but depending on the part, it could still work at 10, 40, 60% capacity. Not only that, engineers can increase this by attempting to fix the part, again using randomness to determine how successful they are- their experience/level affects this as well. If you want random why not go all the way

Edited January 3, 2016 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Rath]

Yeah, the ability to decide between making your parts in the gulag with prisoners or in cleanrooms for reliability would be nice.  For advanced players.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Great idea, should definitely be a toggled option though.

Would open up some interesting opportunities for the Engineer to save the mission for once!

I could see it getting annoying at times...would have to be very carefully tuned.