Unlocking parts through missions and faulty parts

[LordOfTheOrbits]

For 0.24 there will be contracts for earning money such as putting payloads into orbit or needing to test parts from companies like Rockomax in various situations.

I think that you should, in addition to earning money, be able to unlock parts once you successfully tested them.

Of course you would still be able to unlock them with science for the players who won't like to play missions.

Another thing I'd like would be that sometimes the parts you need to test for contracts have issues such as being unstable, being less powerful or having random failures.

Edited February 10, 2014 by LordOfTheOrbits

[leax256]

random failures.

I don't see the appeal of this.

[jwenting]

random failures are on the what not to suggest list for a very good reason: they're utterly annoying and add nothing.

[Nemrav]

I think what he's thinking of is some of those parts that are "a defective docking port" but was found to have some other use could be researched by finding the fault.

[KN_Namida]

Does anybody see the problem with this? Random failures and malfunctions means:

1) It will always annoy you, in a way or another.

2) You'll most likely need to restart the mission. (waste of time)

3) Specially for a newbie, having random failures would be a disaster, because he wouldn't be able to learn anything from a launch that was bound to fail.

4) Also, how do you recognize a random failure from something that happened because of a player's misjudgement or mistake?

[nholzric]

For 0.24 there will be contracts for earning money such as putting payloads into orbit or needing to test parts from companies like Rockomax in various situations.

"...putting payloads into orbit or needing to test parts..." where did this come from, can anyone corroborate this?

[LordOfTheOrbits]

I probably didn't formulate this clear enough, but I meant that only parts which you need to test for contracts to be faulty, not generaly, so you would always have to build a backup solution in your spacecraft.

"...putting payloads into orbit or needing to test parts..." where did this come from, can anyone corroborate this?

It was said in the last Squadcast, here is a short summary of it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68894-Newest-Squadcast-Highlights-lots-of-new-info-about-24

[coolitic]

This counts as random failures. Waiting for a mod to lock this thread =P.

[spinomonkey]

I like the idea of unlocking parts a wee bit early in contracts. Would make for a pretty cool incentive aside for cash. Something like "test out this experimental new part, if you succeed in your contact you can keep it." As for adding random failures on top of this. I actually support the idea- IF, the parts that failed were only parts offered for succeeding in the contact, AND if the part that failed wasn't essential to the contacts completion, AND if the problem was "fixed" upon completion of the contact. Would act kinda like a wild card, thus the whole reason it needs to be tested. And of course, you could always ignore contacts and research it through science.

[vexx32]

From the tone of previous devnotes, it seems that the "test x part in y situation" missions are more for the sake of earning money, reputation or even possibly additional science, as opposed to actually unlocking the parts -- the parts used would already be unlocked prior to receiving such a mission... or at least, that's how I understand it.

As others have noted, the random failures idea is on the [thread=36863]What Not to Suggest List[/thread], because the developers have (multiple times) stated that they want any failures in KSP to be the player's own fault, not a random-number generator. They don't want failures that can't be avoided; they'd like the game to be one of planning and skill and so forth, as opposed to sheer dumb luck.

[Justin Kerbice]

And what about instead having a binary/black & white system, adding some greys ? I mean, random failures can be enabled/disabled according to the user wish, so crazy/stubborn/patient/anything players can have fun with a *** *** ** reactor/tank/pod/wheel that refuse to work as designed, and at the same time, others players don't have to waste time with this.

Rocket science is full of failures after all !

Random generator can also be pondered to create very often to very rare failures, and in case of a failures, such a part testing mission have not to be a failure for the player him/herself as long as the test protocol was carefully followed, the contractor can be assumed to be fair and honest .

Just my opinion

[kBob]

I too had the impression that the parts you tested would already be unlocked (but presumably you haven't used yet), but it's not a bad idea if it could be worked in to the scheme the developers have in mind as a bonus for trying out something new and dangerous that was found on the roadside...but probably shouldn't happen very often and maybe be limited to something from just the next level of tech...it would sort of spoil things if you got say a mainsail just after opening the first level e.g.

As for random failures, which the OP wasn't suggesting in general, but anyway flight simulator had a very easy method to deal with that: you could simply dial in a % reliability factor. Don't want anything to fail? Put it at 100%. Want to test your skill at handling an engine failure? Put it at say 20% and it won't be long before you're down an engine. I used to put mine at 99% just to keep me on my toes once in a while...in real life for the pilot these failures will indeed seem random, same for your car for that matter. I don't really care that much--something maybe for a mod or later version of KSP but it can be dealt with to accommodate people who want it or don't quite easily. In general I don't care for added randomness in my games but this as I say is a case where in real life it seems random so you could say you were just replicating real life.

[Tidus Klein]

What if we where able to fix random failures in EVA....?

And it deppended on how stupid the kerbal was in order to fix it.

EX: a smart kerbal can fix any thing a dumb one can only change a tire XD

This would be an insentive to hire more kerbals.

But what would be the benifit of bringing a dumb one.....Hmmmmm?

Edited February 12, 2014 by Tidus Klein

[Justin Kerbice]

I forgot: when a kerbal encounter a failure, he (she ?) MUST first kick the part, maybe with a wench, and be very angry , as it is always the first step in fixing something.

[Nuke]

threads like these always spew out streams of "no random failures" posts. which is unfortunate because i like the idea of being rewarded for running test flights. not so much that i want random failures. more failure modes maybe, all triggered by pilot error of course. a good example of this is if you fly retrograde into a planetary ring system and get hit with a randomly generated bit of ring material. after all you knew that ring was there, why did you fly into it backwards? or in this case running an engine with a nerfed thermal rating at full throttle for an extended period of time. you knew it was a prototype, why would you do that? there is nothing random about doing something stupid. im especially fond of missions where you have to go out and intentionally break things in the quest for data. this would be an excellent gameplay mechanic.

i think we need to tighten up what the definition of a random failure is. i always think of it as being like the simulator scene in apollo 13. the astronauts are practicing their flight, and the engineers decide to throw them a curve ball. the whole point of this kind of drill is to teach the astronauts how to troubleshoot problems in a crunch. i certainly dont want the game to blow up a random part of my ship every 5-30 minutes for no reason at all beyond the pseudorandom number generator said so. but i would like to have some kind of troubleshooting aspect to the game, especially (and perhaps exclusively) during test flights. i have nothing against problems arising during a test so long as they are fixable and where fixing them results in a reward.

Edited February 12, 2014 by Nuke

[Mulbin]

Its a shame it seems to be a taboo subject. I'd love to have things like a jammed solar panel I have to EVA to repair or a fuel leak I have to go out and plug. why do people assume system failures mean the end of a mission? The devs have already included the repair functionality in the game (has no-one ever blown a tyre and repaired it?), there was also a stock model of a tool box on a dev stream last year... although that never saw the light of day (yet). So repairs have already been implemented in a small way, I suspect they will be expanded on later for player caused damage, I'm sure a mod will expand it even further to include random faults to fix/work around on your missions.

[Tweeker]

It is a real shame that many good ideas are opposed almost as if by reflex. I can definitely see the appeal of having the part you are supposed to test be faulty. It is after all in testing, IE not perfected.

[Tweeker]

Thinking about it further the failure mode of the test part should be somewhat random, other wise it would be too easy to revert to launch and redo a different way to avoid the fault.

[bigyihsuan]

I think what the OP means is that the parts you test for contracts are "different" from the finished part. For example, an engine having less efficiency, air intakes/air-breathing engines that fail at a lower altitude. or the batteries having less storage, etc...

Simply put, same parts, but different stats.

[Legendary Emu]

Post only relevant to the random failures, captain!

What if the random failures were caused by situation and location? Oh no! Micrometeorite whacked the solar panel and broke it while I was orbiting Kerbin. Better go EVA and fix it/replace it. Oh dogbuns, in my haste I drove my rover over a sand dune on Duna and broke the wheel badly because of a rock. A solar flare occurred and deactivated my Minmus satellite for a day. Or a technology failure with a revised science system. I didn't test the Skipper engine to protocol and now it overheats faster, better fix it. The new MK2-3 pod is great, but it showed the wrong fuel level and I had to flick it to make it work. Maybe once the mission control is implemented there is a low chance that there is a big debris field that will destroy you if you don't raise orbit/deorbit within 5 minutes.

Things like what happened in the Apollo missions would be okay. Just not things that explode my engines because of spacecats.

[AlamoVampire]

i actually like the idea of random failures. it to me, adds a touch of realism to the game. I think, if its done, in such a way, where a contract says: Hey look, we got this part, and the R&D guys say its faulty, but cannot figure out why or how. We need you to launch it and try it out to get more information on the fault, but be warned, it MAY fail you in unexpected ways, plan your mission accordingly" could actually be FUN. Just sayin

[Luis]

Failures don't need to be random. I also like the idea of test flight missions but it would be perfectly possible to have missions such as "This engine seems to overheat in a vacuum." or "These parachutes don't deploy above 500m/s." or "This fuel tank leaks slightly." The mission would be to confirm the fault in the part by flying in such a way as to trigger the failure condition, and then manage to recover (through skilled piloting or by having redundant parts) so you can live to tell the tale.

[Nuke]

just increase the number of ways the player can screw up.

[Mulbin]

Post only relevant to the random failures, captain!

What if the random failures were caused by situation and location?... -snip- ...in my haste I drove my rover over a sand dune on Duna and broke the wheel badly because of a rock.

This one actually already exists as part of the stock game. If you drive over a certain speed or hit a rover wheel too hard the tyres blow out... and you can repair them in EVA. Not many people realise this ... give it a try!