Random Failures

[nhnifong]

I don't think squad ever implemented random failures, but every now and then, some decouplers just don't decouple, engines don't fire, and kerbals EVA suits just go on the fritz for no apparent reason. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Cesrate]

Dunno... I haven't met any.

[Dictator Dan]

Random failures being implemented would make me rage so hard.

'Oops, your height above ground was actually in feet, while your speed was in meters per second, haha, our bad!'

'Yeah, turns out we didnt use the proper length screws, so that power generation block for your Vall rover? Gone.'

'Hey, random oxygen leak, all your Kerbals are dead.'

[FlamedSteak]

I get a random bug where my spacebar refuses to work, I have to restart ksp completely to get it working again. So that could be similar to your decoupler issue.

Edited May 28, 2013 by FlamedSteak

[KasperVld]

Or you have accidently engaged the staging lock (Alt+L)? Anyways random catastrophical failures are something the devs say will never be implemented, because all it adds is frutration.

[Edd]

Anyways random catastrophical failures are something the devs say will never be implemented, because all it adds is frutration.

I don't know, I think that a few random failures would add a another layer to the game. I'm talking about slow mono-prop or fuel leaks on your interplanetary vessel, that sort of thing. Things you could repair when more EVA functions are added.

[KasperVld]

That is an entirely different thing because it's not a catastrophical failure

[Aphox]

Small, random failures would be neat as an optional setting for more of a simulation feel. Otherwise it adds nothing but inconsistency in gameplay, which I know would send a lot of people into fits of rage.

[Uocjat]

Had a random quite massive failure the other day where I was setting up my orbit around kerbin before heading out to minmus and for some reason the front of my side went like

"nope screw this im not going further and YOU cant make me *pout*" which of cause meant that the rest of the ship rammed into it with quite a spectacular explosion

of cause I was recording at the time so might have been that the added stress to my computer caused some glitch with the physics - that and it wasn't exactly a well deisgned craft in the first place but later on it flew just fine

[dr_jt]

Kerbals fall out of chairs.

Edited June 6, 2013 by dr_jt

[llamatoes]

Agreed, I have had many launch stages oscillate themselves to pieces because they couldn't take a mainsail.

[dr_jt]

Kerbals fall out of chairs.

Edited June 6, 2013 by dr_jt

[Forgettable]

I've been working on a over-planned Mun mission where my lander, rover, and crew all came in separate vehicles to dock with the Munar station before descending to the surface. I was bringing over a new crew transfer craft for the return home because the original had far too little thrust. When I reached the periapsis to establish a stable orbit before rendezvousing I activated the engines to begin the burn. Then everything exploded. Everything. There was a cloud of debris where the vessel had been blown to nearly individual parts. I sent the pilot out to EVA in an attempt to reach a stable orbit for later retrieval but in my panic I burned in the wrong direction and he was lost. It was a sad day.

[SkyRender]

I speak for the randomizer-abused when I say, random anything for a key component of gameplay is a bad idea in single player. It's a crutch at best for multiplayer to shore up for simplistic design resulting in not much variety, but in single player it's an invitation for Sod's Law to set in at the worst possible moments. And don't think it can't! Even with the passive randomization the game already employs for certain background things (like the title screen loading messages and the track selection), the current lack of a reducing-list randomizer function over an unrestrained one means that you can get the same few results over and over and over again. And I have, many many many times.

Random is a dangerous thing to use. It's meant to simulate chaos, which as best we can tell is nothing more than a magnitude of order so complex that we can't make heads or tails of it due to all of the variables involved. KSP already has enough of a complex system that much of the things that can go wrong feel random, and quite frankly, that's a much better alternative anyway. If random must be used, it should always be restrained somehow, because an unrestrained randomizer can and eventually roll nothing but snake eyes a dozen times in a row.

[aven17]

I think it would be difficult to have any sort of random failure in KSP and it not be catastrophic since just about any failure will affect your delta v in some way.

[nhnifong]

Or you have accidently engaged the staging lock (Alt+L)? Anyways random catastrophical failures are something the devs say will never be implemented, because all it adds is frutration.

No I thought of that. :/

There is definitely a problem where decouplers sometimes don't work. they make a sound, the COM moves, and the lower parts of the ship are no longer clickable, but they are still physically connected. and it's not just clipping, Ive tested it.

The only workaround I know is to take the ship to the vab, remove the offending decoupler and any engine connected to it and all decouplers and engines above it (because they will be affected too) and replace them all from the top down.

[Lazro]

That happens to me all the time. It's annoying.

In response to random failures, I think that failures shouldn't be random, except in small, non-catastrophic ways, like a fuel leak or solar panels slowly becoming less efficient as they are hit by micrometeoroids. Repeated stress, I think should weaken joints and eventually break them, encouraging less wobbly rockets.

[Fleb]

I was doing a rescue mission, and I was coming in for final Mun landing approach with just the last 1500m left. I hit space to jettison the last fuel tank, the decoupler fired but the tank stayed connected. Now I need to launch a rescue mission to rescue the first rescue mission. It turned out though, that in my case it was purely my fault. I had put the engines on the final lander stage too close to the last tank, so when I tried to decouple, the engines boxed it in and wouldn't let it drop.