So what do you guys think of Insurance in Career Mode?

[WhiteThane]

Hard mode is great and all but it's a bit annoying when one of your engines just decides, "Oh I'm just going to sit here and ignore the big rocket leaving me behind." So how about some form of launch insurance? Like an option in the launch menu or a policy that let's say 'Adds 30% to total cost of the rocket, but grants 70% of value if it suffers catastrophic failure within 3 minutes.' I mean it sucks loosing your .5 mil station chunk/lifter because of a bad stage or miss click sucks. Also along those lines how about, 'Charges 10,000 for each insured building every 30 days. Reduces rebuilding costs by 90%.' I only mention this since it doesn't seem to be under the devs current scope for 0.90.0 (.26? Beta? idk.).

Also, anyone see the latest Antares launch?

[Tery215]

Quicksave is like magic time insurance.

Disabling quicksave is disabling magic time insurance.

[sedativechunk]

Quicksave is like magic time insurance.

Disabling quicksave is disabling magic time insurance.

This. Just use quicksaves. Honestly, I know if you're a "hardcore" player you want to leave it off. But KSP is JUST video game. And an error prone, bug filled game albeit that. Sometimes things don't happen that shouldn't and wouldn't happen in reality. That includes things like the kraken and your ship spontaneously exploding for no apparent reason.

[FishInferno]

I think that this insurance thing is actually a good idea. It could be an option in the admin building

[Pecan]

...one of your engines just decides, "Oh I'm just going to sit here and ignore the big rocket leaving me behind."...

Do you know, I can't remember the last time I had a part just disconnect at launch (without the whole launch-pad/ship exploding anyway). Was it 0.23 that fixed that?

Anyway - yes, insurance sounds like it would make a good finance strategy. Maybe as a mod rather than being important for stock.

[Franklin]

Between quickload and revert I don't think I've ever lost a dime.

[WhiteThane]

Same here. Feels a bit cheaty though, and I can't really justify turning it off since I'd slowly begin to hate myself/my flying skills/my crap designs/my idiotic staging

[AbortButton]

I feel that if you want an insurance feature as a fall-back option, you're better off just using quick save rather than asking for a feature which may or may not get implemented.

[samstarman5]

This latest update really set me back in my launching skill. I think it has to do with the new aerodynamics, because any radial stages, once expended, would fly off differently, taking the center engine with them. Since this involved flights trying to get station modules into orbit, that would abort the mission. Sepratrons have now become very important. Those are my insurance, now.

[TMS]

We should not make features to cover up bugs.

That said, i played on hard mode with no reverts for a few days, before getting slightly irritated with being punished for bugs beyond the players control. Reverts are essential for vessel testing.

[Monger]

I doubt that Kerbals would know anything about insurances. Recklessness is part of their genome.

Seriously: KSP is a game about trying crazy things, and feeling good about it. Ironman mode is for those who want to feel responsible for their failures.

An insurance suggests that failure is inevitable, that you will encounter loss no matter how careful you prepare for it. You insure against things that are outside of your control: fire, flood, vehicle accidents, illness... I think for a game like this this is a terrible idea. KSP is about control. You control every aspect of the game, even and especially your own mistakes.

[Frank_G]

Dropping stages without separatrons is indeed more like an insurance for a failed mission. I am lucky, that i like the concept of separation rockets so much, that i already use it on every launch since .21. To be honest, i havent yet played around with the new economic features in .25 yet. I have heard that there are critical balancing issues and i just wait for the next update. However i think it is a nice idea to have an insurance. The tradeoff seems fair. I guess i will try this prior to the next update.

Hopefully NASA uses this setting too, because the ISS resupply mission yesterday blew up 6 seconds after lift off... As far as i know, there were no people injured during the incident, thankfully. There are impressive videos on youtube, if you are interested.

[whaaw]

Hard mode is great and all but it's a bit annoying when one of your engines just decides, "Oh I'm just going to sit here and ignore the big rocket leaving me behind." So how about some form of launch insurance? Like an option in the launch menu or a policy that let's say 'Adds 30% to total cost of the rocket, but grants 70% of value if it suffers catastrophic failure within 3 minutes.' I mean it sucks loosing your .5 mil station chunk/lifter because of a bad stage or miss click sucks. Also along those lines how about, 'Charges 10,000 for each insured building every 30 days. Reduces rebuilding costs by 90%.' I only mention this since it doesn't seem to be under the devs current scope for 0.90.0 (.26? Beta? idk.).

Also, anyone see the latest Antares launch?

or you can use this for your career mode:

to avoid fails

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93722

[CarlosMaximus]

<snip>

Also, anyone see the latest Antares launch?

One of the first comments I saw under this video was "At least no Kerbals were Harmed" Beautiful.

[-ELF-]

Also, anyone see the latest Antares launch?

"Oops!!!

[Escape]

[Revert to launch (10s ago)]

More struts..."

[technicalfool]

Suggestion for launch insurance moved to Suggestions and Development Discussion.

Carry on!

[Cirocco]

I'm really torn on this one. One the one side, it seems like a great idea to add to the administration building to mitigate staging mishaps and the sort. On the other hand it also seems a bit silly since you do have the revert function in case of really bad mishaps, and if your are playing on ironman and the game throws a rocket-breaking bug at you, you should not have to pay in-game for bugs or things completely beyond your control (like the launch pad blowing up due to heavy vessels).