KSP: Hard Mode

[Computer.Pers]

Hi!

Would be nice if this topic will be sticked, the pool questions linked to theirs forum pages.

Wold be perfect if someone add information under this pool about all hard modes in KSP with links.

[almagnus1]

takeit loveit

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43645-KSP-23-5-Mission-Controller-Extended-%28Realchutes-support%29-Version-63-%284-15-14%29

How well does that integrate with B9, Interstellar, KW Rocketry, and Infermal robotics?

[rkman]

I use DR and more-realistic-like solar panels (customized Stock Rebalance). Though i spend more time trying to get DR to behave as i want it to, than i spend just playing.

I plan to use FAR (and used it in older versions of ksp) and a life support mod.

Does ioncross actually work with ksp 0.23.5? I prefer simple generic life support (which ioncross' customizebility seems to allow), not 3 or 4 life support resources that you'd all have to bring in fixed relative quantities anyway, only depending on mission length.

[Redhotita1]

Real Solar System, Realism Overhaul, KW Rocketry Engines, FAR, and Deadly Reentry. best combo of mods

[PDCWolf]

Since when is FAR a hardmode mod? It makes the game way more intuitive if you have a minimal idea of what you are doing, on top of that stuff requires less D/V to get to orbit.

Anyways, most life support modules end up turning into "add this part so that your kerbals don't die" thanks to recyclers. I would consider using the entire "realism overhaul" if what you want is difficulty.

If you want to keep it more stock, then use things like deadly reentry, engine ignitors, that one mod that moves the KSC to get it out of the equator, and maybe a life support mod like TAC, which is still lacking, but will require you to do resupply missions and makes setting bases more difficult.

The second half of difficulty comes with setting yourself restrictions like trying to keep kerbals alive, keeping rockets cheap, using a series of launchers instead of a new rocket for every payload, etc.

[Robotengineer]

I use FAR and Deadly Re-entry I've tried LS mods and RT, but they make it to hard, to me at least. I like it to stay a game.

[xrayfishx]

DRE, FAR, ISP Difficulty Scaler, TAC LS, would use RemoteTech if it worked for 0.23.5, considering using RSS.

None of these are "hard" mods, however. DRE just asks for a heat shield and it's ok, FAR is not more difficult at all, it's just that newcomers aren't used to it, ISP Difficulty Scaler will only make a difference in a few places (mainly Eve), TAC LS doesn't make your rockets huge, really, RemoteTech just requires a little bit of extra attention when planning burns, and with RSS come more efficient engines and a selection of fuels that make designing rockets easier and more flexible, also real life example rockets.

[Vim Razz]

I'm surprised KIDS hasn't been mentioned yet. FAR+KIDS are like two halves of the same mod, imho.

Regarding MCE:

How well does that integrate with B9, Interstellar, KW Rocketry, and Infermal robotics?

It works well with nearly everything, as long as part prices are reasonably configures in the part mod.

The only thing it goes really badly with is RSS, since RSS rockets nearly always cost more than the contract payouts provide.

[Jas1126]

I don't mean to belittle the modder's efforts (as I truly appreciate them) but, really, none of these provided "Hard Mode". Just added to part count after learning about them.

True "Hard-Mode" would have to entail unpredictability. Such as atmospheric changes (sudden wind, weather, ect.). Or, meteorites coming out of nowhere and smashing parts of our ships. Or, random system failings.

Without unpredictability we're just learning how to use new parts; eventually going back to square one in difficulty.

Again, I'm not here to belittle the mod creators or their creations as they do add to the game. I'm merely expressing my opinion on the matter.

[NathanKell]

Jas1126: very true about, say, RSS. I never really understand why people claim [equatorial] launches from it are harder. Now, non-equatorial launches are harder.

Your complaint is less true about something like DRE or FAR. In FAR, you can't stick a "make me aerodynamic" part on your rocket; if it's designed badly and you fly it badly, it *will* tumble and break apart. DRE? No matter your heatshield, you have to watch your interplanetary aerobrakes or you'll jelly your crew.

By contrast your example makes little sense to me; implicit, IMO, in calling for "hard mode" is calling for a hard mode that is skill-dependent; if half your rockets just randomly exploded, with nothing you could do about it, that wouldn't be "hard mode", that'd be "restart half the time mode". Now, if it's a system where better-designed rockets fail less, and you can do various things to recover from failures (like, say, using a low-dV transfer rather than a fast Hohmann transfer, or making multiple gravity assists rather than a straight burn)--that would be hard mode.

Vim Razz, almagnus1, re MCE. The costing mechanism in MCE (and note that MCE autocalcs all costs; it has nothing to do with what the partmaker set the part cost as, because we know that's usually broken if the modder even cares to set it) is pretty much entirely user-configurable. I've periodically posted begging for some crowdsourcing improvements of it, but got no bites by the time I last contributed to MCE (kinda a while ago, sorry malkuth!)

Anyway, it's open and ready to be worked on by anyone who cares to add a few lines to a text file and do some testing.

[BadLeo]

I do agree with NathanKell. "Hard mode", so to say, isn't about making the game unreasonable difficult just because you don't like it easy, but is to add complexity and depth to what is still very plain. Complex systems have a steeper learn curve and need careful planning and micromanagement. In the end, you'll be able to master it same way you'd master the vanilla game, but with more effort. AND the more complexity you add, the more susceptible to failures you'll be, because you'll have to oversee a lot more things at the same time. Not that these failures are unpredictable at all, but it's easier to make a mistake when dealing with complex systems by yourself (that is, without someone to help by reviewing your calculations and decisions). Just like real life, "unpredictable" failures are not that unpredictable. It's just mistakes made by underestimation, misinformation, poor training, cheapening led by restrict budget, ego, political questionable decisions... many things, some of which you can't really emulate in KSP without turning it into an entirely different type of game.

[CaptainKipard]

I'm not sure whether this qualifies but I "modded" my career save to disable reverts, autosaves and quickloading. I also had quicksave disabled but then realised that KSP is still buggy especially with the dozens of mods I run.

RPM might qualify here. It allows challenging IVA flights.

[BadLeo]

The awesomeness of RPM allows it to qualify for whatever you want. And yes, if you can restrain your self, it puts quite a challenge. But, damn, the C key is sure tempting.

[CaptainKipard]

...if you can restrain your self, it puts quite a challenge. But, damn, the C key is sure tempting.

"Through the eyes of a Kerbal" has an option to force IVA.

[BadLeo]

"Through the eyes of a Kerbal" has an option to force IVA.

Uuuuh... will try it ASAP. Thanx for the tip!