Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, the game is very RNG-based, and it's meant to be the kind of roguelike game where you shouldn't expect to win every run. But in hindsight perhaps I went too far with it and could have smoothed things over a bit. If I make RNG-based games like this in future I'll think about how to do this.
Viewing post in RNG on top of RNG on top of RNG... too many layers.
Yeah, it feels very roguelike in a lot of those ways, but most popular entries in the genre have weighted RNG more in line with what I suggested, and less extreme scaling as you progress, because of the exact problems with an overly-random (not overly-punishing) early game. Likewise on the stacking of layers, most games try to limit how many steps of RNG will hit the player before their own choices come into the picture again.
Game is still super fun, though!
Can propose one thing
(big note, proposition comes from a ttrpg system. So might not necessarily fit the game. Still I think something worthwhile can come)
How about adding some methods to "absorb" setbacks/bad rolls?
A some sort of fitting resource or tool that in case of bad situation can mitigate bad consequences.
Good example could be FIRE EXTINGUISHER.
Say. "During landing cooling lines burst overheating parta of ship. Damage to system XYZ has been mitigated by crew using fire extinguisher to cool it down"
Another could be, more of "character succeeds but at higher cost". Like skilled doctor. He might be able to treat injury but become exhausted due to straining themaelves. Needing rest before their chancea to succeed return.
Different could be... choices!
Success being clear success. Partial success forcing player to make a choice of "what they pay to succed OR accept failure". And if rolles full failure THEN works like currently.
Regardless. Have good day!
Good ideas. Another possible approach could be to just add events where "failure" isn't a directly harmful thing. Right now, it feels like every event is a binary "something good happens/something bad happens" roll. Most games have "nothing happens" results on a lot of rolls. Failing a roll isn't always a critical fail where you get hurt. It's usually just that you don't achieve your goal. It's like your fire extinguisher example, but sometimes, you don't even need the extinguisher.
Imagine a "minor turbulence" weather effect. It's not going to make you crash, but your pilot rolls to see how bad it is:
-Failure: Landing costs 1 extra fuel.
-Success: Land with normal fuel cost.
This is a "negative" event, but you have no positive side. It's not "save fuel" on one side and "lose" on the other, which is how this game tends to work. And events could work the other way around too. Like when you're landing on a low gravity world. Make a piloting check:
-Success: Spend -1 fuel on the landing. It's easy to land on low gravity planets.
-Failure: The gravity isn't a problem, but the high winds cause you to still need to spend your fuel on maintaining the course.
Some events could be mitigated just by having the right crew member, too. Right now, there are "your crew member gets a normal Earth illness" events, and your roll is "you treat them and they get better" vs. "someone else gets sick too" which is fine, but what if that roll's possibilities changed based on whether you have a doctor or not? A doctor gives you "they get better" vs. "you have to isolate them but at least nobody else is sick" while no doctor means your best case is "you isolate them in time to avoid the rest of the crew coming down with their illness" and a failure spreads the damage to someone else.