The difficulty settings seem to work well Squad - Nice!

[tater]

I'm commenting mostly so that Squad (should they read this, or be briefed on the "sense" of the forum) knows that it needs balancing. I'm a total noob, and unless I were to yank all the sliders all the way left, I'm not sure it would matter. That said, even if I did, I don't consider having way too little funding to be "challenging," just annoying. I'd rather see "challenge" added via more interesting contracts.

[tater]

Simple thing that profoundly changes gameplay challenge/difficulty:

Life support.

The game should add LS in some fashion. For the sake of simplicity, even a single item that represents all consumption, waste, etc, would be fine. Life Support Units can be consumed 1 per kerbal per day nominally. There might be a setting to "ration" units for emergencies, in which case the game can have a minimum required to live, and reduce the abilities of the guys (assuming their stats someday means something). That or they could be as if in a coma until brought up to normal rations. I'd assume electricity is also required for survival (since it is already dealt with by the game, but capsules would have to have a constant, small drain if occupied).

Anyway, the addition of LS---the consumption rate can be the difficulty slider, min 0 (no LS tracked)---is a qualitative change in difficulty. It changes everything.

[Seio]

I haven't really faced any issues with the funds, and I play on hard. I've even made some horribly failed launches that cost quite a bit. Before I realized crew report counted as sscience, I decided to send up a very small space lab, in total it cost like 40k. First one jeb override the crew so I put it into orbit... Then I sent another mission to exchange the crew, only to realize I forgot an antenna, so I had to take the station down and send up a new 40k space lab. I've thrown away probably about 100-200k, I still have about 300k to spare, and I haven't even gotten as far as going to minmus (mainly because I'm lazy, and I wanted to actually have a space station with use).

Anyway, I think science needs to be improved. The admin building is fine imo, it may need some fine tuning. The contracts are not too well planned, the testing parts in flight is just way too hard to complete with very little reward.

But, the biggest issue is the "science in orbit around x" contract. I think a big improvement would be to have "science modules"... You start out with just a connector, or a core, that is needed, after that you can see potential contracts that needs specific criteria to be completed.

So for example, to complete a science contract you can have the requirements such as:

• "core module" must be part of the craft
  
• "Science bay" module must be part of the craft
  
• 2 crew members must be stationed in the "science bay"
  
• You need to bring up "samples" to the craft (could be done as you start with a "science experiment" in your capsule, or just remodeled/colored 2HOT Thermometer that you need to dock onto the craft)
  

Then you'd have several different modules available, and some contracts would require you to have several modules installed. With that you'd actually have some use for a space station, and it'd be a bit more of a challenge to gather science that way... Though, the contracts for those science contracts would need to be somewhat rare, and maybe progressively less and less until you haven't taken any of those contracts for a while (need to complete other contracts).

The same thing could maybe be done for "base science", so that you have to set up a base on a planet/moon, and then have to gain samples from different biomes to analyze at the lab (so, a base needs to be stationed on mun, with X modules, and samples needs to be gathered from the biomes on the mun to then analyze on the mun base).

[Spatzimaus]

You can usually recover parts at least for in flight or suborbital, just launch straight up.

Assuming you have parachutes, a probe core (preferably inline), landing legs or large girders, et cetera. Most of these things aren't at the start of the tech tree, and in the later game your "real" missions (the ones not made to just complete a part contract) aren't a simple up-and-down thing.

The problem with demanding science return for contracts is that its easy to milk the 1 biome planets dry, at lest so dry it demand return of an goo container or material lab.

As we've said, it's only a matter of time before the other planets/moons have multiple biomes. Remember Minmus; they gave it a minor redesign, and now it has a few (4?) biomes. So it's not quite as bad as you think.

Even so, you're correct that in most cases you'd do one mission with all of the science instruments, and now have no way to gain science from a given biome. This can be fixed, though; all you'd really need is an unmanned equivalent of an EVA Report, like a simple camera. Tiny reward, but no depreciation for multiple uses (although you'd need some sort of lockout timer to prevent someone from spamming it). Heck, just make it tied to the contract itself, like the "Run Test" option for engines; when you accept a science contract, vessels around that body gain a basic "Science Report" action that gives no science but completes the contract at a much lower reward.

The point is, it's workable.

It depends on how you play. People have done Mun landings on the first launch (no science unlocks) using solid rocket boosters that "stage" by blowing up the tank/engine underneath. Could I do that? Yeah, sure, but I want some semblance of a sane design, so I try to get pretty far into the tech tree before I attempt a landing. I wouldn't say that qualifies me as playing "wrong" or being a bad player (btw, I've done a stock Eve return, so I know what I'm doing)

Same here. It's easy to make a really crude Mun mission with low-tech stock parts, even without that SRB abuse, but I just don't do that because real rockets aren't built like that. It's fine to have design concepts that aren't practical in Real Life due to cost or engineering difficulty (like asparagus staging), but it's a whole other story to have concepts that aren't physically POSSIBLE in the real world. For instance, in the real world you can't land a rocket on its engine nozzle without breaking things, but KSP allows that because the impact tolerance for engines are set relatively high (and are uniform across the part). So, a "realistic" design needs landing legs, or at least fins/girders to take the load. (I'm an astronomer, so I'm familiar with how fragile rockets actually are.) Adding real-life essentials like that will increase the costs, especially given how far into the tech tree you'd often need to go, and getting that more massive payload exponentially increases the costs of your launchers as well.

This isn't just aesthetic; take things like Deadly Re-Entry or FAR. Things possible in the current stock game can become impossible once you adopt a more realistic physics model, which often rules out most of those low-cost methods. Even if you dislike mods, the way the game has trended it's probably only a matter of time before the stock model is improved a bit. I mean, just look at the cargo bay we were given in this update. There's no practical reason to have one, given that there's no downside to attaching decouplers to the outside of your vessel instead, but we now have two of them nonetheless. So it's not unreasonable to think that the aerodynamics/drag model will be improved at least a little, to make those bays actually useful.

And yeah, I've been playing since 0.17. I've done a Grand Tour (see sig), flown spaceplanes to Laythe, launched thousand-ton stations (in a single launch), and so on. Playing skill isn't the problem.

[prophet_01]

I agree with Spatzimaus. Some mods for realism make recoveries more balanced. I know that there are actually some people that play rly efficient and still avoid exploits. But to all the people who don't: pls don't claim it's a balancing issue of the contract system if you land a huge booster stage from orbit on parachutes and without heatshields to recover it. I'm sure not everyone plays like that and I don't want to insult anyone who does or say that it's wrong to play that way. Mission profiles that are plain impossible in reality should not be acounted by the monetary system but by aerodynamics and reentry. There are good reasons why fully recoverable rockets aren't used in RL.

That sayd I couldn't agree more on the ideas on recover science contracts. It could rly need a system that prevents using a single satelite to do it 100 times with the same paymemnt. I would rly apreciate a reason for manned missions (and returns!).

Life support could at least partly solve those planting a flag forest next to my base thing. I would prefer a penalty for doing it in the same biom with the same kerbal over and over again.

In my opinion there are only 2 ways to make the settings balanced at the moment. One is to have a self commitment on role playing aspects and the other one is the heavy use of mods.

[CreepyD]

Sounds to me like some of you people should really try the Better than Starting Manned mod which will provide you much more of a challenge.

Honestly I could never go back to the standard game after playing it, it improves it that much.

It's basically designed for gameplay, challenge and logical progression.

[SRV Ron]

One problem on hard mode, is in the bug report, Jeb keeps falling off the pod on EVA which causes issues with getting science from EVA reports. It is nearly impossible for him to get back inside as every time you maneuver him back to the pod door, he flies away when you hit the F key to grab.

Anyhow, I have finally advanced far enough the tech tree only unlocking those parts necessary for the contract mission to the moons and planets. Did only one manned orbit of Mun to get a bunch of science with the rest on testing contracts.

The low cost orbiters and landers in use. (could remove one SRB and use a smaller fuel can on the third stage to cut cost further.)

Cheap orbiter

Mun, Minmus Lander.

From 24.4 Career.

Modified designs will go to Duna, Ike, and Eve. A slightly beefier design will land Jeb to gather surface samples for return.

Edited October 10, 2014 by SRV Ron

[Sky_walker]

One problem on hard mode, is in the bug report, Jeb keeps falling off the pod on EVA which causes issues with getting science from EVA reports. It is nearly impossible for him to get back inside as every time you maneuver him back to the pod door, he flies away when you hit the F key to grab.

Oh yea, that thing is seriously annoying. Even more so as it's completely random. Sometimes when descending on a chute you can exit to EVA just fine - in other occasions you fall down to death. :/ No idea what's up with that, but it totally feels like a bug.

Anyhow, I have finally advanced far enough the tech tree only unlocking those parts necessary for the contract mission to the moons and planets.

http://i.imgur.com/vFQBzP1.jpg

For planets - yes. But for the moons? No way. You have more enough parts to land on Mun or Minimus after unlocking... what... 5 techs? 6? tops (seen people doing that with starting techs, though that's way too much of a stretch IMHO). No need to run through nearly quarter of the tech tree like you did there.

[Superfluous J]

Oh yea, that thing is seriously annoying. Even more so as it's completely random. Sometimes when descending on a chute you can exit to EVA just fine - in other occasions you fall down to death. :/ No idea what's up with that, but it totally feels like a bug.

There is absolutely no need to EVA on your way down while dangling from chutes. Once you've landed (even in the water) just hop out and while on the ladder take an EVA report. It'll be "flying over" the biome you're in. Same report you'd have gotten dangling in the air, with 100% less risk of falling to your death.

[RocketBlam]

Funny, I built my first Mun rocket and still have 160k in the bank, and I did few parts contracts (combined them with some other missions). My comments were not theoretical, I am playing a hard campaign, and have not reverted, quick saved, etc. I've unlocked a couple 90 science things, and everything left of that, and paid for all the parts, too. If you are low on money, and you have ever played before (this is only my 3d career, the date under my name is when I started playing) you are doing something very wrong. Money is not a problem, nor is science. On hard. I have yet to experience a "trade off."

There was a point around that time in my game where I had some money in the bank too, and I can't remember what happened, but I spent it and ended up only barely being able to build a Minmus rocket. It might have been that space plane I crashed into the ocean...

[Spatzimaus]

Life support could at least partly solve those planting a flag forest next to my base thing. I would prefer a penalty for doing it in the same biom with the same kerbal over and over again.

We discussed a few possibilities for this, but it basically boils down to a few options, each with its own drawbacks:

1> Require a specific biome (or at least a different biome than you last used). The problem with this is that unless you've added mods, you can't easily see where the biomes are. Telling someone to plant a flag in the Northwest Crater on Mun isn't too informative unless they have ScanSat.

2> One flag mission per kerbonaut per planet, period. Once Jeb has planted a flag on Mun and claimed the contract reward for that, he can't complete a second flag contract. You can make a large base with multiple kerbonauts, but it'd still give a cap on the number of times you can claim that reward unless you're willing to do large passenger transfers. (On the plus side, there wouldn't be a true cap as you can always just hire more kerbonauts.)

3> Add a distance check. That is, you can't place a flag within a certain distance of another flag, or at least can't claim a contract reward for doing so. This at least avoids the "flag farm", but has various drawbacks depending on how you'd implement it. If you prevent placement of multiple flags then it hoses those of us who use a line of flags leading to my runway on Kerbin, to make it easier for spaceplanes to line up on it at night. If it's only the contract that requires a separation then how do you tell a player when he's gone far enough to complete the contract?

Honestly, though, I'd like to see a few more types of contract. If it becomes possible to complete more contracts as you go through normal gameplay, then you can reduce the payouts for all the existing types without hosing the players. Exactly what those other types should be is a separate discussion, though.

[RW-1]

Well, it can be easy to run out of $$$ IMO, you launch a mission, forget to add something like an antenna, and you can't revert. You may get it back but lose a major part of your investment in said ship. It only takes a few mistakes on hard to screw yourself down the road, but that is now my current appeal of it

[darnth]

double-post

Edited October 10, 2014 by darnth

[Spatzimaus]

There was a point around that time in my game where I had some money in the bank too, and I can't remember what happened, but I spent it and ended up only barely being able to build a Minmus rocket. It might have been that space plane I crashed into the ocean...

I had something similar, although without the crashed spaceplane. In my case, it went like this:

1> Do a few contracts, get a metric buttload of science due to the policy that turns funds into science (at 20%).

2> Unlock a bunch of techs.

3> Since I'm on hard, spend the money unlocking the various parts I want to use. Given the number of parts unlocked in step 2, that's a LOT of money.

4> ?

5> Profit!

The problem was step 3. If I'd only been making one type of craft and unlocked parts as I needed them then it might have been okay, but I was developing several different vehicle types. I have a small spaceplane (delivers ion satellites to orbit), a large explorer spaceplane (capable of reaching Laythe), a fuel depot, a small rover, a huge rover, a Grand Tour all-in-one vessel... you get the idea.

Now, if they cap those strategies so that you can't get ridiculous amounts of science then maybe the progression would be better (fewer parts to unlock per mission means less money lost), but it still seems a bit tight unless you really prevent yourself from unlocking everything you might want.

[SRV Ron]

For planets - yes. But for the moons? No way. You have more enough parts to land on Mun or Minimus after unlocking... what... 5 techs? 6? tops (seen people doing that with starting techs, though that's way too much of a stretch IMHO). No need to run through nearly quarter of the tech tree like you did there.

Sure, I could have done the moon contracts far sooner with a less capable and much more expensive manned mission before unlocking the Stayputnik, OxStat panels and the Too Hot thermometer. The orbital mission was done as soon as I had the LV-909. But the examples posted are the most cost efficient way to go when every Kerbalbuck counts. The Mun and Minmus landers are then placed back into orbit to fulfill future data in orbit contracts for no additional cost.

[Glubo]

I think that hard mode is good for few starting missions, but if you survive first ~five missions, then you must screw really bad several times to get into trouble. And few missions later, things get serios "wtf i can make ~1M cash + ~3k science with a probe worth ~60k and have plenty of spare delta-v in the process". http://imgur.com/a/IUNUT

[tater]

I started a modded install (FAR/DRE/Isp). Gonna be harder without PF, probably. I cranked science/funds rewards down to 30%. Parts contracts pay way less than parts cost if you lose any, rewards are near zero. Still accelerating money, easily.

Short of spending every penny on a rocket, then blowing it up, I cannot imagine having money problems even in this campaign. Stock "hard"… I don't foresee anything but funds rolling it. If you add in the "strategy" options, virtually impossible to lose money I think.

[magnemoe]

There is absolutely no need to EVA on your way down while dangling from chutes. Once you've landed (even in the water) just hop out and while on the ladder take an EVA report. It'll be "flying over" the biome you're in. Same report you'd have gotten dangling in the air, with 100% less risk of falling to your death.

This, however the loose grip on eva from MK1 pod is annoying, ladders solves most of it.

[darnth]

Regarding claims made earlier that many "test XY" missions hardly break even on hard setting (60%), I strongly disagree (agreeing with a lot of other people though ().

Last night I started a game on 10%/10%/10% and with ISP difficulty scaler (KSP->real adjusted). Doing 1-2 "test XYZ" missions per flight usually broke even, on 10%, though didnt earn any money, just earning me a single measly science point here and there (10% science sucks, as it applies to everything not only mission ). But thats with my rockets needing to be 7 (!!!) times larger than stock KSP due to the difficulty scaler, with 10% but no ISP scaler one should probably make profit with most suborbital missions. The only profit possible for me was doing two "sub-orbital test" missions at once (earning me 500-1000 together each time if I dont make mistakes) and I was able to grind missions to having LV-909, decouplers and batteries unlocked plus 20k cash.

Pod -> orbit using that and then career mode is instantly broken due to repeatable "get science from space" missions. With the new strategy options, its a lot of science once you have the very first thing in orbit in addition (reputation and money -> science). Got probe, first solar panels and thermometer due to this, creating infinite (if you click long enough) money and science.

Anyway, even with ISP scaler (remember, 7 times larger rockets*) and 10% mode, its still possible to achieve everything in game, so claims that people don't drown in money in hard mode must clearly be exaggerated (or having lots of launch failures, though straight up launches for everything up to sub-orbital are super safe to do with some practice).

Likewise difficulty settings might be fine on their own but the combination of "transmit science from" and the new policies breaks the campaign mode at any difficulty.

In previous versions every veteran was swimming in money anyway, so infinite money source from those was not a huge issue, now its super broken. Longterm I think they need to get rid of any "get stuff for no effort or resource cost at all" missions if difficulty settings are supposed to mean anything.

* rough estimate using rocket equation, for comparison the rocket that then took a probe barely into lopsided moon orbit (one side low orbit, barely staying in orbit on other side due to fuel running out) has delta-v of 11km/s when switching the Isp scaler off

[Alshain]

I just started my hard mode game and I have to say I agree with the OP. I'm finding I have to be really careful what I unlock and when, and much to my surprise I actually used the admin building, I didn't think I ever would. This is something the game has needed to improve the balance for a long time.

[Kerano]

I'd like it if the admin strategies were affected by difficulty level.

For instance:

Hard - admin strategies are 40% less effective. (If the conversion rate between certain resources was 1 to 10 on normal, it would be 1 to 6 on hard.)