Random failures, quality control, rocket insurance?

[-Velocity-]

What if an (optional!) random failures system was implemented? You come up with even a decent rocket in KSP, and it will literally never fail. There is no chance for random failures. What's the point of a launch escape system? There used to be some random failures on some designs (I had a rocket that would randomly explode in a spectacular fireball about 1 in 20 launches), but with the stronger parts patch in particular, these kinds of things have dissappeared. (Also, fixes of Kraken-like behavior helped remove random explosions.)

I think that KSP is missing some explosions. Real rockets aren't as dependable.

I would propose a new system of random failures. It would have at least three aspects-

A) Random failures. Engines can randomly explode. Parts under stress can randomly break. Decouplers can randomly decouple. That sort of thing. It would make flying rockets much more interesting, because now there could be a chance that something would go wrong! Your Kerbals would actually be risking their lives when flying into space! You might actually need that launch escape system!

Quality Control- Random failures, by themselves, would suck, and most people would hate them. There must be ways of controlling random failures and mitigating losses besides just blind luck. So I propose quality control. As you advance up the tech tree, you'd get better quality control (reduced chances of failure). You could also apply quality control on an individual basis on rockets you fly, for an additional cost. For example, the same rocket could go fly inexpensively for unmanned payloads, but when carrying Kerbals, you would want to spend some additional funds on quality control to "man rate" it. And you'd spend an insane amount of funds on quality control for an interplanetary transfer ship, for example.

C) Insurance- You could purchase insurance for your rockets, so that if they fail you are refunded- just like real commercial space launches! It might be difficult, however, designing a system that can accurately detect a failure. For example, if one of your rocket's fins fails, you'll probably be fine, but a blind insurance system, that just refunds you if there is a failure, would think your rocket failed. Perhaps the insurance could work like the "revert" button, allowing you to file a "claim", immediately ending the mission and refunding you. Your insurance payments would go up on future rockets if you file a claim, keeping you from abusing the feature. How that would work for manned flights though, I donno.

Anyway, I think that random failures, and the features that would go with them like quality control and insurance, would be excellent additions to the game somewhere down the road when it goes off (new planned) feature freeze, or in KSP 2, if there ever is such a thing. IMO, KSP sorely misses the realistic aspect of rockets randomly failing.

Edited February 10, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Tuareg]

no thanks. i just wonder after 544 posts you haven't seen all the topics about this stuff? If you like suffering, do it. Most would just save a lot and reload after every random failure. pointless

[Greenfire32]

Random failures is one of those suggestions. It'll never happen outside of a mod.

And honestly? As someone who is super interested in space (and science in general), but not nearly smart enough to be Mr. Rocket Scientist, the last thing I need is for my rocket I've spent days designing to just...fail...randomly.

If it blows, it's because I did something. Not because the game arbitrarily decides that Duna is a great place to lose all engine throttle control.

[Vector-5]

I agree on this. It would add a whole new level to the game, at least in career mode. I suggest that the quality control be made either through the R&D Department or the Admin Building. Perhaps a new kerb could be added in one of those buildings. However, I disagree with your example of random decouplers firing. As far as I know, decouplers use explosives to slice your rockets in half, so they would have to be handled carefully. Perhaps a better idea would be to have fuel tanks randomly start to leak. This could, of course, be prevented (to a certain extent) by quality control.

-Vec

[KSK]

I agree with Tuareg on this one. A small number of players would really dig this - others would do a lot of saving and reloading or reverting to launch.

However, it might work really well as a way of spicing up contracts a little. If the random failures happen to some other space program and they need you to launch a rescue mission / send a refueling tanker / send an engineer to fix the busted spacecraft.

[-Velocity-]

Random failures is one of those suggestions. It'll never happen outside of a mod.

And honestly? As someone who is super interested in space (and science in general), but not nearly smart enough to be Mr. Rocket Scientist, the last thing I need is for my rocket I've spent days designing to just...fail...randomly.

If it blows, it's because I did something. Not because the game arbitrarily decides that Duna is a great place to lose all engine throttle control.

You didn't read my post at all, did you? As per my suggestion, you would be very unlikely to suffer failures on interplanetary missions if you spent money on good quality control. And your rocket you spent days designing? If you bought insurance, you'd be refunded, and could try again. And I suggested that this system be an optional system, too. Those who like it, play with it for added realism, those who don't just don't. It's a single player game, after all, and the players should have the freedom to choose.

- - - Updated - - -

no thanks. i just wonder after 544 posts you haven't seen all the topics about this stuff? If you like suffering, do it. Most would just save a lot and reload after every random failure. pointless

No, I haven't seen the posts on random failures. I searched too, but the KSP forum search tool is really horrible, I can never find what I'm looking for. And I doubt any posts presented random failures like this- with insurance and quality control aspects mitigating them and adding new gameplay and tech tree options and value. Though this isn't like all that original of an idea, so someone could have easily thought of it and posted before.

And there would be those who wouldn't want to save and reload, especially if random failures were not such a bad thing- if they were mitigated by insurance, for example.

An additional suggestion- to actually reward players for random failures- perhaps if a rocket randomly fails, (not only can you be refunded if you purchased insurance) but Kerbals "learn" from the failure and parts associated with that rocket receive a quality control boost, reducing their chances of failing in the future. A lot like real life.

Edited February 10, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Greenfire32]

You didn't read my post at all, did you?

I did. That's why I replied to it. Please don't assume that because I said words, I didn't read yours.

You would be very unlikely to suffer failures on interplanetary missions if you spent the money on quality control.

Then what is the point of adding in failures that don't exist if you check the "spend money" box? That's like saying, "Let's add a 1-year lifespan to Kerbals so you don't always use the same 3 every time, but you can buy special doctors to extend the lifespan indefinitely if you want."

What. Is. The. Point.

Besides creating an unnecessary and frustrating mechanic that does nothing to better the game?

And your rocket you spent days designing? If you bought insurance, you'd be refunded, and could try again.

Again, I ask you: why add something to "make the game better" and then add something else that completely removes said "better thing."

It's not even about how adding random and unpredictable failures is a bad idea anymore, it's about how you think we should add a feature and then add another feature that removes the first feature, rending the whole thing completely pointless and leaving us in the same state that the game is in right now.

Back to the original topic:

Be honest, would you enjoy Mario if he suffered random heart attacks? Would you enjoy Zelda if Link actually had to sleep and go to the bathroom every couple of ingame hours?

Would you enjoy racing games if you had to check the oil, replace batteries, fix windsheild chips etc before every single race?

Would you enjoy playing survival games if "Character genetics" were a factor? Like your in-game dad has diabetes so it's only a matter of time before you go blind and literally can no longer survive (ie: play the game)?

Random failures would NOT add fun to KSP. ONLY frustration. And insurance is not the answer, its a cop-out.

[-Velocity-]

I did. That's why I replied to it. Please don't assume that because I said words, I didn't read yours.

Well, then you didn't understand it.

Then what is the point of adding in failures that don't exist if you check the "spend money" box? That's like saying, "Let's add a 1-year lifespan to Kerbals so you don't always use the same 3 every time, but you can buy special doctors to extend the lifespan indefinitely if you want."

Because "the check the money box" is quite expensive. You'd never apply the strictest quality control to a whole rocket- just the interplanetary part.

What. Is. The. Point.

Besides creating an unnecessary and frustrating mechanic that does nothing to better the game?

Because launching rockets that never fail is not as fun and interesting. Because real rockets explode. Because a lot of people enjoy playing "rescue missions"- just look how many people make threads like "help, Jeb is stuck on the Moon"! The hardest difficulty doesn't allow you to revert, it's catering to people who try to role play the game.

In short, this may be a novel concept to you, but not everyone plays the game the same way, and for the same things, that you do.

Again, I ask you: why add something to "make the game better" and then add something else that completely removes said "better thing."

It's not even about how adding random and unpredictable failures is a bad idea anymore, it's about how you think we should add a feature and then add another feature that removes the first feature, rending the whole thing completely pointless and leaving us in the same state that the game is in right now.]

It would not remove random failures, just mitigate them, and unless you spent exhorbitant sums, you'd still deal with random failures during launches. And since the lives of Kerbals cannot be replaced by insurance, then you are forced to design adequate launch escape systems.

I understand this is utterly mystifying to you, but if you open your mind and accept that other people have other play styles, it might start to make sense

[Vanamonde]

Random failures is one of those ideas that has been so beaten into the dirt that we've added it to our list of things not to suggest again, for the sake of keeping forum discussions moving along productive lines. Please review this list before starting threads. This one will be closed now.