Most Extreme Career Settings

[KevinTMC]

Here's a question for the forum: what is the hardest Custom difficulty setting that is still playable? (Let's say "playable" means something like "possible to complete tech tree, before kerbals or self die of old age or get taken off to the loony bin.")

I'm asking because when I fired up 0.25 for the first time, I started a career with all General Options set to off, and all sliders set to the most extreme settings (10% rewards, 1,000% penalties, 0 starting funds and science, -1,000 starting reputation). I've completed 9 contracts so far (some with two- or even one-figure payouts in funds), and got Jeb into space, but am not sure I'll be able to get much farther, with a current fund balance of 6,904 and few contracts available that will so much as pay for the parts--or even the fuel!--expended to complete them. And of course from the start I've only ever been one failure away from the program shutting down.

(Reputation's already all the way up to -915 though. Woot?)

So maybe these hardest possible settings are a bit beyond what I'm looking for in a "Most Extreme (Yet Not Totally Insanely Futile) Career Mode". Are some of the other veteran players around here getting a sense for where the outer limits of sanity might be?

Or perhaps this should become a challenge? "MXKC: Most Extreme Kerbal Elimination Challenge!" Could be fun. Could also be pointlessly grindy...

Edited October 10, 2014 by KevinTMC

[Bandock]

That would make for an interesting challenge. I have thought about that myself to see how extreme the conditions players can go. Even at the most impossible conditions.

[juanml82]

I don't think that's playable. Contracts are supposed to be profitable and, through them, you make the money to run the space program. But, under those settings, contracts are often done at loss

[SkyRender]

You should probably not put Funds below 30%. The way the game is set up right now, generally the rewards for contracts are around 500 to 800% of the setup cost of the absolute most efficient possible way of doing things. At 30% funds rewarded, you would be slightly better than breaking even (150% to 240% of initial costs) if you managed to do things perfectly and cost-effectively.

[prophet_01]

I tried some more extreme settings aswell, although I didn't went for the fully maxed out difficulty settings (no negative rep). But I wasn't happy with the urgent need to recover as much as possible. I had to do crazy and unrealistic designs. I quit after my first orbital flight and steped back to hard with Tac LS, FAR, DRE and remote tech. I could still restrict my income a little more, but I already failed a reentry on a rescue mission and was close to bancrupt

[Padishar]

Do as many "landed at kerbin" tests as you can, assuming your really bad rep lets you get those contracts (though this is horribly grindy as they don't usually pay very well). You can remove the fuel/thrust from engines/solid boosters/sepratrons to ensure full recovery. The trick is to reject all the contracts that are either not possible with your current funds or not profitable...

[r_rolo1]

Yargnit started last Saturday a career save with all the reward sliders to the minimum ... TBH I don't know exactly how he is at this point, but atleast he already did a munar flyby...

I assume that at those settings you need to be extremely careful in choosing contracts, since most of them will be a net loss under those settings :/

[cantab]

Reasonable rewards but massive penalties might make sense. Keep doing well and you'll get by, but one screw up and it could be game over.

I wonder if the save file can be edited to push the values beyond the 10-1000% range?

[KevinTMC]

Yargnit started last Saturday a career save with all the reward sliders to the minimum ... TBH I don't know exactly how he is at this point, but atleast he already did a munar flyby...

Is there a video or forum thread for that? I don't see it. Would be curious to know how he's gotten that far.

I'm trying to figure out the cheapest possible craft to achieve orbit. Not having any room for experimentation in "real" missions, I ran a couple "simulations" (i.e. tests outside career) and was still coming up 200-300 ÃŽâ€v short on my c. 6900 fund craft.

Running such "simulations" seems a bit outside the spirit of career mode. (On the other hand, how else is one supposed to figure out how to hit the velocity and altitude targets for some of the parts tests?) But then, being a reasonably veteran player also messes with the game's expectations, at least at the start of career.

Maybe loosening up the hardness settings a bit, and adding Kerbal Engineer Redux (I haven't installed any mods in 0.25 yet, and I'm not so veteran that I can eyeball my craft's ÃŽâ€v), would be a reasonable compromise.

[KerbMav]

http://www.twitch.tv/yargnit/profile/past_broadcasts