Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Landing randomly failing is not fun
Closed, ResolvedPublic


I know it's realistic, but having your lander randomly fail and smash you into the ground is just about the least fun mechanic I could possibly think of.

It's too divorced from the player to be fun - I have no influence over it other than paying over the odds to hope my new $2500k rover doesn't crater.

It's essentially a random death, and I can't think of a game where that was ever fun.

Suggestion: Either remove the risk of crashing on landing, or give the player an "active" way of avoiding it. This portion would have to diverge from realism in the name of fun, though.

Maybe you could have a QTE as the engineers try to "quickly regain control" of the craft, or something like "Guidance failure, take manual control!" and have the player guide the craft down. Perhaps cash invested could make this section easier. If the player fails, then the lander would crash into the ground.

Or since this is a fictional private company, perhaps they could have some kind of "insurance" on the landers?

Whatever happens, randomly killing the player and potentially their whole space program is not rewarding, it doesn't create any tension (since the player has no control over it) and it's not fun. I don't imagine any of the solutions would be particularly realistic, but I think it may be worth it in the name of fun.


Legacy ID
Not A Bug
Steps To Reproduce

Launch mission

Roll dice

Hit surface at 200m/s

Event Timeline

Bohemia added a project: Restricted Project.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM
Duckfang edited Steps To Reproduce. (Show Details)Aug 2 2013, 7:57 PM
Duckfang set Category to category:suggestions.
Duckfang set Reproducibility to Random.
Duckfang set Severity to None.
Duckfang set Resolution to Not A Bug.
Duckfang set Legacy ID to 2214796453.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM
cky2250 added a subscriber: cky2250.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM

Duplicate of this issue.

You can save before you launch the rover. I like how it is a random death because in real life you don't know if your idea will work on a planet so far away that is not equal to earth.

Zalifer added a subscriber: Zalifer.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM

I love the realism of the game, and I think random failures have a place, but I agree that instant death is a little harsh. Perhaps a single failure, like a camera or insrument not working, but if the whole lander is lost before doing anything...

A QTE upon failure, and once landers are controllable, manual landings might be a good way to give the player some chance to save it. Perhaps even if they succeed, a single instrument or part is in some way damaged?

This is a case of gameplay over realism.

Bohemia added a subscriber: Bohemia.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM

I like when the thing smashes the terrain. Sorry for that but downvoted.

FredyC added a subscriber: FredyC.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM

I think there should be possibility to add emergency parachute (does that even work on Mars ?) for some extra money spent. So expensive equipment can be retrieved later.

@FredyC really think about what you just said. With NASA's $700-1000 per Pound to low orbit not to mars. And for Mars with a thinner atmosphere I would think the parachute would be up to 40 pounds. So right there you are looking at $28-40k. That is just the cash.

If you really think about it why would NASA put an emergency parachute to retrieve equipment. Why wouldn't they just land with a parachute? It would only either blow into the lander/rover, or land on top of it.

So in short a parachute is a no brainier to say it wont work.

Bosgek added a subscriber: Bosgek.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM

Mars doesn't have enough atmosphere to land something on (a reasonably sized) parachute. To give you an idea: it's 0,6% compared to Earth at sea level.

Perhaps the sudden death thing could be made 'optional' to please everyone?
As long as you can still progress in the game without having to rely on savegames (that's also not realistic) or a lot of luck, I'm in favor of it.

Agree with Bosgek - everyone can be made happy if "No Landing Failures" was made a tickbox option in a "Difficulties" setting screen.

idolord added a subscriber: idolord.May 9 2016, 9:48 AM

Don't you know that in reality we (i mean heart) achived les than 50% successfull landing on mars ? i think the game is prety realistic in that way.

Landing on the red sister of hearth is and will always be a hard and unpredictable task.

@FredyC & cky2250 as mars have an atmosphere using parachutes is relevant (it is even used for real mars landing) but as mentioned by cky2250 mars atmosphere is too thin to allow the use of parachutes alone this is why skycranes are used.

I agree whith the "no landing failures" Loophole suggested for those how prefer fun over realisme but i would not use it at all.

but less failure wouldn't be realistic at all so i voted no ...

Making this a difficulty option would solve all problems. A big menu with lots of tickboxes for different aspects of the game as an advanced mode of selecting difficulty would be ideal.

Agreed with NovaSilisko.

Dram added a comment.Sep 10 2013, 8:30 PM

Closing this as there will be a new part failure system added. The old system has been removed for some time now, and the new system will be linked to difficulty options.