"Difficulty setting" versus "Game-design"

[Kegereneku]

Hello Kerbonaut,

I noticed it is becoming common to see player ask for features to be compatible "difficulty setting" and felt like we we could discuss this trend.

Abstract:

I wanted to point out that asking for everything to come with setting have a price, just like a rocket is more than the sum of its parts, a game's balance is more than some number. It's often the equation that link them.

Or said another way, a way to break a game is to to make its balance-algorithm simpler so it can be set, many good game are balanced by many parameters that do not make sense without game-developing skills.

Also, asking for "difficulty setting" is not always out of altruistic motives.

"We all know that" some will say. Maybe, but setting are a good excuse to suggest something IN or OUT without saying outright and starting flamewar.

ex :

Someone who do not like a feature will reque...suggest for the game-developer to make possible to balance the game without it.

Someone who want an unpopular feature will claim it as a "much needed" "higher difficulty" or ask for proxy features requiring his own.

I think we all know example like that.

We would swear that our favorite Deadly Reentry mod could be a difficulty setting ON/OFF, Life-Support too, or planet scale even. Alas we would be missing the details like the new parts to model and the time to write the code and test.

I'm not putting blame on people for wanting to add variety or custom fit their experience. There's more than enough case where setting are a formidable asset for a game, also I trust the developers to do professional choices, rule out feature they do not see fitting, recognize mods which fit (and save you time, admit it !).

I just wouldn't want our dear and respected all supreme & glorious SQUAD being called lazy by expecting the player to balance the game themselves. Just like I don't want myself to have to try 40 different setting to find one that work.

So this topic is to discuss :

What would make good setting for KSP ?

What do we need setting for ? If at all ?

Some of the best game I know do not let you modify the setting or make them very abstract.

But with a game like KSP I do not think this is a question of difficulty, "Easy / Normal / Hard" won't change the physics, they can't. You can change the economic, but some of us have very specific vision of how their space program should evolve, and will mod their game until they can pretend to play Orbiter 2.0.

So it would be a question of personal experience.

And I'll finish this message by saying you shouldn't have to select your experience "before game", ideally you should make it on the go.

[prophet_01]

My opinion is that the game should be in somewhere betwen remotly realistic (I kno thst's imprecise) and fun to play. This alone is hard to get right and many people will have different opinions on that. For example I rly dislike the fact that ssto's are relatively easy to make in stock ksp, because of the missing reentry mechanics and the odd air intake behaviour. Especially the last one is something that can't be adressed with the good old "screw this, I pretend it's there and roleplay! " (like you can do with DRE, although it's not exactly the same). But honestly, I don't think that the more experienced players (the vast majority of people over here) agree on most things like (NEAR-alike) aerodynamics or some form of softened reentry mechanic. That's what I've seen, if I missed an important discussion than please correct me. There are however a lot of topics that heavily divide the forum (life support).

but all that doesn't cover the very important aspect of the learning courve. The basic question is: how much can new players be tortured with real life physics? Even if those mechanics are softened, they still make a huge difference. DRE is one of those. You need a better understanding of orbital maneuvers or you burn up. Mun returns are going to be more difficult for new players. And THIS is where I think difficulty settings should kick in. My opinion is that theire main purpuse should be to lower the learning courve, so experienced players still have a decently complex and interesting game. My definition of this would include more plane/shuttle parts than we hafe now (although not much more), reentries and aerodynamics. Some additional stuff like a need for satelites can be included with contracts.

And at that point I will mod my game till I'm happy with it. That includes additional parts, life support (I put it over here cause not everyone likes it), remote tech and a bunch of others.

As a conclusion my intention is to have a game that's not a full simulation and leve a fair margin for the players mistakes and impatience

But I think the game should stop you from doing mission profiles that are basically impossible. I'm not talking about details like the number of stages or the overall amount of needed delta-v. I'm talking about explosive staging woth srb's to mun land with tier-1 or air hogging with 2000 m/s