Pilots Suggestion

[passinglurker]

40 minutes ago, Alshain said:

No it doesn't make sense to save fuel somehow flying the exact identical trajectory.  It doesn't work that way.  There is no executing commands more efficiently.  If you burn to raise your Ap for 20 seconds at Pe it will use the exact same amount of fuel every single time assuming the exact same starting parameters, and assuming you can actually do that perfectly each time, however simply having a pilot on board doesn't change that at all, your imperfections are still there but somehow you are magically conserving fuel despite them?  The only way to make that work would be to have the pilot be a full AI flight computer and Squad said no to that a long time ago.

They are not exact trajectories we pilot by guesstimate and eyeballs so there is a margin for gameplay elements to compensate for our own failings or the failings of the ui like the aim aim assist in a console shooter. The idea that you use less fuel when you have a skilled pilot in the seat is an example of an abstraction in this case is an abstract presentation of how the kerbal is doing a better job than you timing burns and such it's really not a hard concept to wrap your head around. and either way how does this stop you from playing how you want if you disagree?

36 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all to do two identical burns and have one somehow use less fuel.  That would corrupt the very core of the game in my view.

I'm sorry but it does makes sense I'm sorry this is so hard for you to grasp that it's just a game and therefore we aren't so constrained in the implementation of gameplay elements.

The two burns are not identical one burn is better plotted, aimed, and timed but making an auto pilot is hard so the game would instead cheat and just give you a boost to make up for shoddy piloting if you put in the time and effort to level up you crew a totally fair trade off.

Now what would you say is the very core of the game that this would corrupt? Is it not the freedom of exploration? The challenge of design? The commitment of time? How could saving a a few units of fuel with a 5 star pilot corrupt any of that? 

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

On 3/7/2017 at 8:37 AM, Veeltch said:

Making pilots magical amulets that grant you percentage bonuses is really stupid especially in a game that isn't RPG. You could as well suggest introducing alchemy. Same thing. Same with the damn XP system. It should have never been introduced in the first place.

IRL pilots don't grant you magical efficiency boosts because that would be breaking the laws of physics. This game always lacked micromanagement of the ship and that's what pilots should be used for. Maybe they should even get some sort of autpoliot to fly in formation. That would be much more useful.

Pilot on board = stock Pilot Assitant maybe?

[Daniel Prates]

Ever since the idea of "loss of signal" was incorporated, a pilot became a mandatory thing in some situations. A good pilot more so. Before that, yeah, eventually the pilot became useless. 

I am all for expanding the usefullness of all game features at game-end. I think for instace that once you deplete the tech tree, every 1000 science could give 1% "something" like fuel efficiency or so. How to convey that to pilots?

I guess we could start considering pilots as "mission commanders". Having higher-ranking commanders would provide bonuses. Since good operation results in better eficiency all-around, yeah, better pilots should imply bonuses!

[Alshain]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

They are not exact trajectories we pilot by guesstimate and eyeballs so there is a margin for gameplay elements to compensate for our own failings or the failings of the ui like the aim aim assist in a console shooter. The idea that you use less fuel when you have a skilled pilot in the seat is an example of an abstraction in this case is an abstract presentation of how the kerbal is doing a better job than you timing burns and such it's really not a hard concept to wrap your head around. and either way how does this stop you from playing how you want if you disagree?

Exactly, they are not exact and the only way to make them better would be a full Autopilot, not happening.  You can't make the fuel better without actually change the maneuver, that's what makes no sense.  So you either have full autopilot to improve fuel use, or you don't.  There is no in between.

Quote

I'm sorry but it does makes sense I'm sorry this is so hard for you to grasp that it's just a game and therefore we aren't so constrained in the implementation of gameplay elements.

The two burns are not identical one burn is better plotted, aimed, and timed but making an auto pilot is hard so the game would instead cheat and just give you a boost to make up for shoddy piloting if you put in the time and effort to level up you crew a totally fair trade off.

That is scientifically wrong.  You can't have one without the other.  The game is still based on real world aspects.  For years it has been touted as having realistic orbital behavior.  If you want a complete work of fiction, I've recently been addicted to the new Zelda game, it's a lot of fun.  If you want a SciFi space game, Elite Dangerous is good.

Quote

Now what would you say is the very core of the game that this would corrupt? Is it not the freedom of exploration? The challenge of design? The commitment of time? How could saving a a few units of fuel with a 5 star pilot corrupt any of that? 

The core of the game is to be as realistic to real world rocket science as it can be.  While that isn't technically and completely possible for a game of this nature, there are things it doesn't do right due to technical reasons, you are suggesting intentionally imposing inaccuracy that isn't a technical deficiency at all.  That is against everything KSP is.  You want to throw all the math out the window here.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Alshain

[regex]

On 3/10/2017 at 8:30 PM, Vanamonde said:

By this reasoning, engineers should not make mining equipment more productive because it's the machine doing the work in either case, and science instruments should not be more revelatory just because a scientist is present when they are turned on. 

Yes, exactly. Why do we have these classes in the first place, they make zero sense...

E: Seriously, the classes as they stand are just so incredibly bad from a realism and gameplay perspective. It's almost as if the designer was forced to come up with a reason to have them and mechanics to define them for whatever hare-brained reason.

Edited March 13, 2017 by regex

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

Exactly, they are not exact and the only way to make them better would be a full Autopilot, not happening. 

Autopilot isn't happening because its highly controversial with twitchy reflex users, and difficult to implement. Pilot isp boost on the other hand isn't hard to implement and only makes RO users mad it seems if we accept you can't please everyone and in the absence of a complete better plan it remains the best option for improving the relevance of pilots.

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

You can't make the fuel better without actually change the maneuver, that's what makes no sense.  So you either have full autopilot to improve fuel use, or you don't.  There is no in between.

Actually I can make the fuel consumption better without changing the maneuver or practicing my Z/X key timings. I simply have the game cheat and create the illusion of autopilot by slightly altering my rate of fuel consumption when I meet the appropriate criteria in this case having a high level pilot at the flight stick. In the end the same result is achieved with this in between solution and no one's the wiser.

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

That is scientifically wrong.  You can't have one without the other.  The game is still based on real world aspects.  For years it has been touted as having realistic orbital behavior.  If you want a complete work of fiction, I've recently been addicted to the new Zelda game, it's a lot of fun.  If you want a SciFi space game, Elite Dangerous is good.

No youuuuu go play something else

Anyway mutual childish potshots aside I recognize it's scientifically wrong scientifically right is a programmable autopilot, n-body physics, a to scale model of our solar system etc etc... kerbal is touted for realism not because it's realistic (far from it in fact) but because it creates the illusion of realism. Pilots boosting isp (or negating a persistent penalty however you want to frame it) is just an extension of that illusionary behavior

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

The core of the game is to be as realistic to real world rocket science as it can be.

BZZZT! wrong you are getting KSP mixed up with RO
 

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

While that isn't technically and completely possible for a game of this nature, there are things it doesn't do right due to technical reasons, you are suggesting intentionally imposing inaccuracy that isn't a technical deficiency at all.

Imposing inaccuracy can't be helped we already suffer an inaccuracy in having to manually pilot everything with minimal instrumentation unlike real life. My inaccuracy simply makes a preexisting inaccuracy more tolerable to play with.
 

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

You want to throw all the math out the window here.

No I just don't want to play under RO's heavy thumb, but if you want math imagine that autopilot/practiced manual piloting with advanced instruments is X% less wasteful than than unpracticed manual piloting with simplified instruments. What the suggestion hopes to accomplish is counteract that waste without complicating the interface, developing auto pilot, or telling players to "get gud" cause I don't have confidence that squad will make those first two better approaches actually happen.

2 hours ago, regex said:

Yes, exactly. Why do we have these classes in the first place, they make zero sense...

E: Seriously, the classes as they stand are just so incredibly bad from a realism and gameplay perspective. It's almost as if the designer was forced to come up with a reason to have them and mechanics to define them for whatever hare-brained reason.

Ok lets see your complete from scratch career mode overhaul plan then (that isn't just RO)

I mean if someone can design and prove out a better plan or convince squad to scrap career mode and start over on it I'd be all over that but until then I'm pushing making the most of the mess we got.

[Gaarst]

KSP is built on a "realistic" basis. Since 100% realism isn't fun for everyone, the game gets away from this realism by doing simplifications.

Patched conics, infinite reliability and so on are fine because they are simplifications of real life made to make the game easier. Magic pilots are not a simplification of anything, that's where it differs from the previous examples and why I am against it: it's just an arbitrary feature for "balance"* and to make pilots useful. It doesn't help gameplay, doesn't bring anything new and doesn't make anything more accessible. It's unnecessary and against the game's principle of having realistic physics (save a few simplifications).

 

* Though I don't personally see why balance is that much of a priority: astronauts are a burden, there's a reason why we've sent probes to Pluto while no one has stepped on the Moon for 50 years.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Gaarst
omg so many typos

[regex]

49 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Ok lets see your complete from scratch career mode overhaul plan then (that isn't just RO)

Not entirely sure where I claimed I was a game designer or that I could do it better. I'm also not sure where you got this idea that I think RP-0 is a better career implementation (it is, but I don't really enjoy playing it either). All I said was that what we have now makes zero sense. Maybe someone in a position to do something about it will see what I wrote and possibly take it to heart...

E: If you insist on your demand that I redesign the classes then I would simply get rid of them and have levels represent just raw space experience rather than do anything. Remove all special abilities from all Kerbals. If those were for some reason desired then I would suggest two classes only (scientist and engineer) with their current bonuses. I'd get rid of the silly SAS leveling on probes and pilots as well (the rational being that all astronauts should be able to press the "t" button), leave the probe cores as just different form factors.

Edited March 14, 2017 by regex

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Autopilot isn't happening because its highly controversial with twitchy reflex users, and difficult to implement. Pilot isp boost on the other hand isn't hard to implement and only makes RO users mad it seems if we accept you can't please everyone and in the absence of a complete better plan it remains the best option for improving the relevance of pilots.

Most certainly not the reason Autopilot isn't happening.  It's not happening because the game developer wanted you to fly rockets, not watch them fly.

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

Actually I can make the fuel consumption better without changing the maneuver or practicing my Z/X key timings. I simply have the game cheat and create the illusion of autopilot by slightly altering my rate of fuel consumption when I meet the appropriate criteria in this case having a high level pilot at the flight stick. In the end the same result is achieved with this in between solution and no one's the wiser.

Key word there is "Cheat". You are asking for the stock game to cheat for you.

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

No youuuuu go play something else

Anyway mutual childish potshots aside I recognize it's scientifically wrong scientifically right is a programmable autopilot, n-body physics, a to scale model of our solar system etc etc... kerbal is touted for realism not because it's realistic (far from it in fact) but because it creates the illusion of realism. Pilots boosting isp (or negating a persistent penalty however you want to frame it) is just an extension of that illusionary behavior

You are talking about things that are left deficient for technical reasons.  I already discussed that.  Pilots don't boost ISP.  That is an impossible fantasy.

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

BZZZT! wrong you are getting KSP mixed up with RO

BZZZT! No I'm not, and I've never played with RO, not ever.  This game was created to teach about real world rocketry.

6 hours ago, passinglurker said:

No I just don't want to play under RO's heavy thumb, but if you want math imagine that autopilot/practiced manual piloting with advanced instruments is X% less wasteful than than unpracticed manual piloting with simplified instruments. What the suggestion hopes to accomplish is counteract that waste without complicating the interface, developing auto pilot, or telling players to "get gud" cause I don't have confidence that squad will make those first two better approaches actually happen.

Neither do I, but I want a game where I can have realistic rocketry and a reasonable suspension of disbelief for technical reasons.   Pilots do not boost ISP in the real world, they don't need to do it here either.  It doesn't help realism because it's not realistic, it doesn't help gameplay because it just adds unnecessary complication to the design.

Look, to be honest.  You can believe what you want to believe.  The fact is Squad already decided firmly not to do anything like this.  It was actually in one of their early plans and they realized what a dumb idea it was.  Us discussing it here is not going to change that, so whether you think magic kerbals able to alter the ISP of an engine is a good or bad idea, it's not getting developed.  End of thread.

[Enceos]

Pilots could benefit from having some Mechjeb features, like creating smart maneuver nodes for circularization and stuff, maybe performing the planned burn, showing up more flight information, descent speed lock. The game already has some smart features which help you in the tutorials, I'd give some of them to the pilots.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Enceos

[Matuchkin]

On 13/3/2017 at 11:12 PM, Daniel Prates said:

I am all for expanding the usefullness of all game features at game-end. I think for instace that once you deplete the tech tree, every 1000 science could give 1% "something" like fuel efficiency or so. How to convey that to pilots?

There isn´t a way to convey this to pilots. Humans aren't known to run on science. It is much more logical to say that, every X amount of science, engines and tools (avionics, etc) upgrade in terms of iterations (i.e. vector mk1, vector mk2 or mainsail mk1, etc).

[Daniel Prates]

1 hour ago, Matuchkin said:

There isn´t a way to convey this to pilots. Humans aren't known to run on science. It is much more logical to say that, every X amount of science, engines and tools (avionics, etc) upgrade in terms of iterations (i.e. vector mk1, vector mk2 or mainsail mk1, etc).

That is what I just said, I beleive.

[Wjolcz]

I feel like if the classes were never introduced this discussion would have never happened. Shame they were because IMO there are more important things that should be discussed when it comes to this game and how it's played.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Veeltch

[MysterySloth]

Hmm... Why does the KSP wiki say pilots can do MechJeb?

 

[razark]

4 minutes ago, MysterySloth said:

Hmm... Why does the KSP wiki say pilots can do MechJeb?

 

Where does it say that?

[MysterySloth]

2 minutes ago, razark said:

Where does it say that?

Right over here

EDIT: Accidentally linked a YT vid

Edited March 21, 2017 by MysterySloth

[razark]

2 minutes ago, MysterySloth said:

Right over here

Hrm.

My browser must be broken.

[MysterySloth]

5 minutes ago, razark said:

Hrm.

My browser must be broken.

By doing "MechJeb" i mean MechJeb-LIKE functions.

I also can't tell if you're trolling.

EDIT: I am an idiot. GO ME!

Edited March 21, 2017 by MysterySloth

[razark]

2 minutes ago, MysterySloth said:

By doing "MechJeb" i mean MechJeb-LIKE functions.

Mechjeb covers a lot more than the tiny bit of functionality that pilots provide.

Describing it as similar is quite a bit of a stretch.

 

3 minutes ago, MysterySloth said:

I also can't tell if you're trolling.

Just a little.  I also couldn't tell how serious you are from your posts.

For a serious answer of "Why do pilots do what pilots do?", then the answer is simply that Squad decided that's what pilots should do.

[Razorforce7]

Nothing much to add to the comment sections. I very much agree to the stupidity of this idea (no pun intended)
And I want a complete career/ranking system overhaul.
That's a big game expanding feature, and I doubt but hope that the developing team is willing to still go that far besides adding minor plugins.

What the topic starter is basically asking for is a virtual pilot efficiency system while the player himself is the pilot.
Is this topic a request for substituting lacking pilot skills with engine bonuses?
If yes, then watch some videos on learning to be a better pilot and practice.

I may also advice the TS to use either engine mods or edit the part file.
If you can do that personaly with a few clicks I see no reason to suggest it as a game implementation anyway, despite all the other reasons.

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Razorforce7