Parts wearing out

[MatzahMan]

What if parts had a limited time before they wore out and needed to be replaced? This would mean that space stations couldn't orbit forever, without consequences, probes would have a limited life, and a whole new type of mission might be created: maintenance missions. In my mind, parts would not wear out annoyingly fast, would not need always to be constantly replaced, and be not be frustrating overall. This would add another dimension to the game because we couldn't launch rockets and not worry about them anymore, we would have to maintain them, take care of them, and think ahead before recklessly sending a rocket into space.

Space Stations: Eventually habitation modules would wear down and would need to be replaced. Solar and power generators would burn out or short circuit and need to be worked on by Kerbals, to continue generating power. Tool kits and replacement parts might be a necessary parts to a functional space station. Kerbals might regularly inspect the station and scheduled maintenance rockets might be a must to bring a space station to its full potential.

Probes: Instead of probes orbiting endlessly around Jool, probes could eventually wear out and turn into debris. We would be forced to think smart, choose durable parts capable of lasting the journey and sustaining themselves in a high radiation environment like Jool's. We would also have to fulfill the science experiments and observations in reasonable time.

Problems: They big flaw in this idea is time warp. You could be concentrating on a mission to Duna, only to switch back to your space station to find it in complete shambles. Also, I don't know about you guys, but I dislike doing one mission over and over, and launching routine maintenance rockets would be extremely boring and repetitive. Another problem is I like to switch up my missions and work on a variety of missions at once. (ex. docking a module to a space station, then deciding to work on a Duna mission instead of launching another module.) this would make playing very difficult because I would need to constantly switch back to all of my other satillites/probes/stations/etc. and maintain them.

I know there is more problems than ideas, but this is just an idea I wanted to throw out there and see what people say. Please mention improvements/ideas/solutions and people can discuss it.

[Bilfr3d]

I'm not sure (can't really remember), but I thought this was planned for a future release? Still, I reckon it would add a fair amount of realism to the game, and you couldn't just leave things up in orbit, you'd need to actually go up and fix it a some point. I like it

[vexx32]

I don't think it would be this simple, really. If you're going to have parts just randomly wearing out it would be weird. I mean, in a standard Earth environment, things wear out over time generally due to weather, rusting, etc. None of that occurs in space. The only thing that would wear things down is the Kerbals breaking things themselves, or the flow of electricity gradually wearing down the circuitry. Things don't really rust in space, nor is there any weather (apart from solar storms and the like) to wear them away. On other planets, it's a whole new cup of tea, as it depends on what's in the atmosphere and the ground, and the gravity of the planet.

I think that this kind of realism is a mite excessive for a game like this. I could understand it in something really intricate like Orbiter, but I don't think it's for KSP.

[Bilfr3d]

I don't think it would be this simple, really. If you're going to have parts just randomly wearing out it would be weird. I mean, in a standard Earth environment, things wear out over time generally due to weather, rusting, etc. None of that occurs in space. The only thing that would wear things down is the Kerbals breaking things themselves, or the flow of electricity gradually wearing down the circuitry. Things don't really rust in space, nor is there any weather (apart from solar storms and the like) to wear them away. On other planets, it's a whole new cup of tea, as it depends on what's in the atmosphere and the ground, and the gravity of the planet.

I think that this kind of realism is a mite excessive for a game like this. I could understand it in something really intricate like Orbiter, but I don't think it's for KSP.

What you say about things not being damaged in space due to weather, etcetera may be true, but what about the cases like Apollo 13, where the oxygen tanks just mysteriously blew. Things like that could possibly happen in the kerbin universe too.

[vexx32]

The developers have repeatedly said that they do not want random failures like that to happen in KSP. Seeing as the player cannot prevent it nor do very much to fix it, it would simply result in a lot of unnecessary frustration. I also think that any mission failures should be a result of a lack of planning, and/or skill in either building the craft or flying it. Random failures like that might be "realistic", but they add nothing but frustration to the game.

[Sirrobert]

I don't think it would be this simple, really. If you're going to have parts just randomly wearing out it would be weird. I mean, in a standard Earth environment, things wear out over time generally due to weather, rusting, etc. None of that occurs in space. The only thing that would wear things down is the Kerbals breaking things themselves, or the flow of electricity gradually wearing down the circuitry. Things don't really rust in space, nor is there any weather (apart from solar storms and the like) to wear them away. On other planets, it's a whole new cup of tea, as it depends on what's in the atmosphere and the ground, and the gravity of the planet.

I think that this kind of realism is a mite excessive for a game like this. I could understand it in something really intricate like Orbiter, but I don't think it's for KSP.

Moving parts would wear out in space though right?

[Dooz]

I would like every part in the game to have a state of damage if a fuel tank was damaged it would leak if a command pod is damaged you cant use the reaction wheels and if wings were damaged they would have low lift and kerbals cant repair the fuel tanks so a part

Called a spare parts and tools

[allmhuran]

One of the biggest challenges for career mode seems to be how to handle time warping and non-focused craft.

Let's say, for example, that we want to be able to have a scanning satellite. Right now this is a real pain in the butt, because you have to focus that craft while it orbits again and again and again. Additionally, it needs to be able to perform its function during warp, otherwise you will be spending several days in KSP doing nothing but watching a satellite slowly accumulate data. "Playing" KSP will mean having it run in the background while you watch youtube.

How is this relevant to this thread? Because it seems to me that part degradation, life support resources, energy consumption, terrain scanning, etc, are all things that need a solution to this problem before any of them can be used as a meaningful gameplay element. Several mods have already had a stab at this and some of them do a pretty good job of coming up with a workable solution.

If and when this kind of core engine element is sorted out and added to one of the updates so that we understand how it works I think we will get a better picture of the kinds of gameplay elements that would best make use of it and be able to provide better suggestions on how they might work.

[mcbmaestro]

Well it says they plan on "random failures/malfunctions". I'm glad they are going that route as then not every single part of everything will need repairing. I'd love to see engine fires, etc.

Edited November 13, 2013 by mcbmaestro

[Tex_NL]

Well it says they plan on "random failures/malfunctions". I'm glad they are going that route as then not every single part of everything will need repairing. I'd love to see engine fires, sudden decompression and other disastrous things.

Please show where SQUAD says they plan "random failures/malfunctions".

It is common knowledge (excluding a few people) that SQUAD is NOT planning random failures. And I do believe vexx already said exactly that.

(If you're referring to http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36863-What-not-to-suggest than you misread. It's just there because this has been suggested dozens of times already. That does not mean it is a planned feature.)

[Sirrobert]

Well it says they plan on "random failures/malfunctions". I'm glad they are going that route as then not every single part of everything will need repairing. I'd love to see engine fires, etc.

You got a weird confusion. Squad is strongly against random features of any kind other than the players input

[DevoidLight]

Well it says they plan on "random failures/malfunctions". I'm glad they are going that route as then not every single part of everything will need repairing. I'd love to see engine fires, etc.

What says it? Source?

[vexx32]

Moving parts would wear out in space though right?

It depends on a large number of factors -- the stresses they have to undergo, whether they have adequate lubrication, etc. At present, though, there are not "moving parts". One can assume that engines will wear out over time from the stress of having things effectively explode within them, but apart from that there aren't really any parts in the stock game that would wear out (maybe antenna and solar panels, if you extend/retract them on a regular basis, but apart from that...)

Well it says they plan on "random failures/malfunctions". I'm glad they are going that route as then not every single part of everything will need repairing. I'd love to see engine fires, etc.

No. It says do not suggest it. That doesn't mean it's planned. Every single time a developer has deigned to address such a suggestion, it has been essentially vehement refusal to punish the player for things beyond their control.