peadar1987 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Perhaps there should be an option for reliability and random failures of certain components in career mode. It would make things a little more interesting if you had to plan for things like perhaps your third stage booster failing to ignite, solar panels failing to deploy, or a fuel tank springing a leak, and would lead to more "Apollo 13" style improvisation and rescue missions.You could increase the reliability of your spacecraft by using more reliable (but more expensive) components, and also by investing in the tech tree.And if it would really annoy you to have a 2 year mission scuppered because the ascent engine on your lander has failed, you could have the option of turning it off.What do people think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWeegee4000 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 It's been suggested.A lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djsnowboy267 Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 If implemented, it should definitely be optional. I like the idea, but sometimes I am just not in the mood for something like that to happen. It could be fun though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeman Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 The developers are strictly against random variables causing parts to fail or what-not.The closest thing I could see them implementing would be maintenance, where parts lower in efficiency over time, requiring spacewalks to boost them back up to maximum performance but even that is probably against their wishes. Imagine poppin' out to clean the solar panels on your big, huge space station, though, every so often.Might be a mod someday, though. Maybe >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerbart Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Things don't explode enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peadar1987 Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 It's been suggested.A lot.Ah sorry, I had a scan through the Already Suggested and What Not to Suggest threads and didn't see anything about it. If the devs are against it, they're against it. Maybe something that might eventually come up in a mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leax256 Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Ah sorry, I had a scan through the Already Suggested and What Not to Suggest threads and didn't see anything about it. If the devs are against it, they're against it. Maybe something that might eventually come up in a mod.that or maybe some "hardcore" dlc thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allmappedout Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/36863-What-not-to-suggestIt's under miscellaneousMiscellaneous •Aliens*•Female Kerbals•Random failures / malfunctions•Cities and landmarks•Better crew management [28]•Parachutes for Kerbals [34]•Personalised Kerbals•More camera modes [29] [30]•Saving maneuver nodes in quicksaves [31]•Weather features•Kerbal cemetaries and such* [32] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEichinger Posted September 5, 2013 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Hello there As has been addressed, random failures have been suggested multiple times - and were already denied by Squad. The What not to suggest? list is in place because these topics have been discussed from just about every angle imaginable (the Search probably brings up some stuff about it, too), or have already had some clear decisions made about them. In this case, it's the decision to avoid random influences as much as possible.I'm closing this thread now.FEichinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts