MrNeon
New Member
- Oct 26, 2025
- 8
- 35
I've already mentioned this in my previous post.
I might have cracked the case, thanks to my friend, FTLparachute. (I don't think i can mention anyone here yet)
This post wouldn't have come to life without his idea.
When i wasn't an experienced player, the mere thought of a part failure was scary to me. What if the mission i've spent so long on just fail in a matter of seconds? But, now, as i became better, i think that part failures should be implemented as KSP missions became stale and predictable. Obviously, as an optional difficulty setting.
I - Normal part failures
Part failures will not destroy your mission, but will try emphasizing overengineering (i did that a lot in KSP) - an engine part can slightly weaken (or shut down if there's more than one engine part), something non-crucial can stop working like a battery shutting off, a solar panel stopping tracking, but has a very low chance of happening.
(Think 1-15% maximum, obviously configurable, changing with difficulty)
In my opinion, this would make craft designing add redundancy, or risk. You either choose between that extra deltaV or a risk of your mission getting significantly harder (or in extreme cases, failed)
II - Lifespan part failures
After a certain lifespan, parts can fail, or weaken. An engine that didn't burn for a long time can have problems with reigniting later, solar panel efficiency might degrade over time, RTG generators won't generate as much power, ISRU will have low efficiency, etc. Also, putting stress on parts or being reckless (like crashing a rover, continous overheating of an engine or a bad landing) can shorten the lifespan of a part. However, this feature would affect some chosen parts for balancing reasons (So you don't need to send an entire mission just to repair an entire probe)
III - Repairing parts
You can send engineer role-related kittens (or something else!) to repair the parts, with you having several choices on how to prevent long-term part failure.
Options include:
Reusability - every part will cost the same. You can technically simulate reusability, but it won't affect part failures as it might be inconvenient. However, i think this would make a great difficulty enhancer.
Spamming prevention - Repair kits would have a limit so you won't pack a ton of them and extend the lifespan for up to 100+ years. Also, repair kit efficiency would degrade over time so you can't make a part immortal. (Nanobots aren't affected by this)
Once again, i can't thank enough FTLparachute for this idea.
Consider this as an addon to my previous post. (Thank you all for viewing and voting it! It means a lot to me.)
And for RocketWerkz - this would be a great part failure system.
- MrNeon
I might have cracked the case, thanks to my friend, FTLparachute. (I don't think i can mention anyone here yet)
This post wouldn't have come to life without his idea.
When i wasn't an experienced player, the mere thought of a part failure was scary to me. What if the mission i've spent so long on just fail in a matter of seconds? But, now, as i became better, i think that part failures should be implemented as KSP missions became stale and predictable. Obviously, as an optional difficulty setting.
I - Normal part failures
Part failures will not destroy your mission, but will try emphasizing overengineering (i did that a lot in KSP) - an engine part can slightly weaken (or shut down if there's more than one engine part), something non-crucial can stop working like a battery shutting off, a solar panel stopping tracking, but has a very low chance of happening.
(Think 1-15% maximum, obviously configurable, changing with difficulty)
In my opinion, this would make craft designing add redundancy, or risk. You either choose between that extra deltaV or a risk of your mission getting significantly harder (or in extreme cases, failed)
II - Lifespan part failures
After a certain lifespan, parts can fail, or weaken. An engine that didn't burn for a long time can have problems with reigniting later, solar panel efficiency might degrade over time, RTG generators won't generate as much power, ISRU will have low efficiency, etc. Also, putting stress on parts or being reckless (like crashing a rover, continous overheating of an engine or a bad landing) can shorten the lifespan of a part. However, this feature would affect some chosen parts for balancing reasons (So you don't need to send an entire mission just to repair an entire probe)
III - Repairing parts
You can send engineer role-related kittens (or something else!) to repair the parts, with you having several choices on how to prevent long-term part failure.
Options include:
- Tier I, II, III repair kits for engineer-role kittens. The higher their level, the better they are at repairing it and can even do it automatically at the highest experience level. (Early game)
- Robotic multitool + storage for repair kits for automatic/autonomous repair (Mid game)
- Late-game nanobots that can stay inside a part and keep repairing it for a really long time (like 50+ years) but they themselves aren't safe from degrading and will eventually die (Late game)
Reusability - every part will cost the same. You can technically simulate reusability, but it won't affect part failures as it might be inconvenient. However, i think this would make a great difficulty enhancer.
Spamming prevention - Repair kits would have a limit so you won't pack a ton of them and extend the lifespan for up to 100+ years. Also, repair kit efficiency would degrade over time so you can't make a part immortal. (Nanobots aren't affected by this)
Once again, i can't thank enough FTLparachute for this idea.
Consider this as an addon to my previous post. (Thank you all for viewing and voting it! It means a lot to me.)
And for RocketWerkz - this would be a great part failure system.
- MrNeon
Upvote
0
