Improving Kerbal Classes, Experience, and Recruitment

[Master Tao]

Wait, why were the threads merged? The ideas are different. The other OPs thread was to get rid of classes entirely, while mine was to add to them.

Your thread was on the same topic even though the suggestion was different.

[Windspren]

Your thread was on the same topic even though the suggestion was different.

But it if the suggestion is different then shouldn't they be seperate threads?

[Master Tao]

But it if the suggestion is different then shouldn't they be seperate threads?

An alternative suggestion is essentially a response to the original. By keeping them in the same thread, other users can compare them and respond to both.

Now, can we get this thread back on topic?

[Windspren]

An alternative suggestion is essentially a response to the original. By keeping them in the same thread, other users can compare them and respond to both.

Now, can we get this thread back on topic?

Can you at least move this to the beginning of the thread? Because I don't think people are going to read every post up to where it's at right now.

Thank you for making the forums a better place, mods!

[Wjolcz]

OK, so I didn't mention it in the previous posts and it looked like I didn't even read the OP, but I actually did and totally support his idea. Just forgot to say it.

[Grumman]

Let me know what you think!

Removing all SAS capability for probes is both unfun and unrealistic. Adding three different types of decay (funds, reputation and supplies) might be realistic, but it's not fun.

Adding a Science fee to discover asteroids is contrary to how the rest of the game works. I'd rather have an Orbital Telescope part that pays me science to find asteroids.

Re: removal of infinite Monoprop fuel. I'd rather make it a one-way street: if you've got monoprop on board you lose some when someone goes on EVA and get it back when they return but if you don't have any it still fills the EVA tank with "virtual" fuel that does not return to the tank when reentering the spacecraft. If you allow Kerbals to go on EVA with zero EVA fuel, there is a bug that you are making far, far worse.

[Joonatan1998]

I think reputation slowly decaying/increasing to 0 would be interesting.

If you have terrible reputation it would slowly fix itself, good reputation would slowly go away.

The further away from 0 you are the faster reputation would decay/repair.

The strategies would have to be rebalanced for this.

The rate would be very slow, cutting your reputation in half maybe every 3-5 years.

(maybe an difficulty setting)

-5 reputation/day is just way too much.

Adding positive effects from waiting without it having any negative effects in a game where player can acelerate time 100000 times is just pointless. (and something 1.0 did)

Edited July 7, 2015 by Joonatan1998

[Windspren]

Removing all SAS capability for probes is both unfun and unrealistic. Adding three different types of decay (funds, reputation and supplies) might be realistic, but it's not fun.

Adding a Science fee to discover asteroids is contrary to how the rest of the game works. I'd rather have an Orbital Telescope part that pays me science to find asteroids.

Re: removal of infinite Monoprop fuel. I'd rather make it a one-way street: if you've got monoprop on board you lose some when someone goes on EVA and get it back when they return but if you don't have any it still fills the EVA tank with "virtual" fuel that does not return to the tank when reentering the spacecraft. If you allow Kerbals to go on EVA with zero EVA fuel, there is a bug that you are making far, far worse.

Actually, removing SAS from probes without reaction wheels seems much more realistic than the current system. It would make players either use a pilot to ferry the ship to orbit, or force them to add a heavy reaction wheel to it. As pilots currently have little use, it would encourage players to hire them.

The science fee actually does make a lot of sense, because it adds a lot of strategy to the game: Should I track this asteroid for X science when I can gain X science or this asteroid for X contract?

Having "virtual" Monopropellent fuel just doesn't make any sense. It's the exact same as the current system, where you can instantly refill EVA fuel just by entering a ship. And anyways, all pods come with at least 10 units of mono. If you're completely using 2 tanks of EVA fuel on a mission without any other tanks, you have other problems.

- - - Updated - - -

I would also suggest allowing EVAs off-world instantly, but not allowing use of the MMu until a science node is researched mid game. To allow EVAs early in the game a "tether" feature would be added where on EVA a Kerbal would click on a ladder and select the "Attach Tether" function, which would act like a KAS cable.

[Geschosskopf]

Actually, removing SAS from probes without reaction wheels seems much more realistic than the current system. It would make players either use a pilot to ferry the ship to orbit, or force them to add a heavy reaction wheel to it. As pilots currently have little use, it would encourage players to hire them.

Given that our original threads offer suggestions in largely opposite directions, it's really hard for me to agree with anything you say . However, they told me in law school that the adversarial clash of ideas is the surest way to the truth, so this is actually a good thing for the purpose of improving the game, which we at least agree on as being rather broken .

Anyway, I don't like this idea because the tragically misnamed SAS wheels don't have SAS, just torque. SAS is a command function, a separate module, than reaction wheel torque. Thus, taking SAS out of probe cores means that no probe will ever have SAS regardless of how many reaction wheels you stick on it. Which essentially ruins probes. Conversely, if you move the SAS module to reaction wheels from probe cores to solve that problem, then pilots will still be obsolete because folks will just stick reaction wheels on their ships. Given that they already do this anyway, this all accomplishes nothing in terms of making pilots useful.

I really don't see any way the existing, let alone an expanded, Kerbal class system can continue to exist as long as it contains a specialized pilot. That's just never going to be worthwhile and I'm terrified of what sort of physics-breaking things Squad has in mind right now when they say they're "adding pilot skills". Please, please, please, no dV / Isp / thrust buffs. That will just hose up the rest of the game. If individual players want to designate certain Kerbals as their pilots, they're free to do so. But ramming that down everybody else's throat at the expense of overall gameplay and realism is a bad idea.

In any case, a probe core should always be at least as good, if not better than, a Kerbal pilot. Having it otherwise is silly, unrealistic

Having "virtual" Monopropellent fuel just doesn't make any sense. It's the exact same as the current system, where you can instantly refill EVA fuel just by entering a ship. And anyways, all pods come with at least 10 units of mono. If you're completely using 2 tanks of EVA fuel on a mission without any other tanks, you have other problems.

A while back, Squad intended to have EVA use the same mono as rockets and to draw refills for the packs from the ship's mono tanks. That's why, once upon an update about 1 year ago, all the crew pods suddenly acquired a default supply of mono, so that even if you didn't add mono tanks for RCS use, you could still do some EVA flying. Unfortunately, at that time mono consumption was on an "equal consumption rate from all tanks in the ship simultaneously" system, so that small tanks (such as in crew pods) ran dry first. The result was that if your rocket actually used RCS during the trip prior to EVA, the pod would have zero mono left unless you remembered to lock the pod tank in the VAB or pump in a refill from the main booster tanks prior to staging.

Squad decided this was too big a trap for the unwary/careless/forgetful so abandoned this idea. Instead, they created a new resource (EVApropellant) which is what we still use, which has a finite supply in backpacks but infinite resupplies in pods (prior to this, EVA didn't burn fuel at all). But they left the mono in the pods with the intent to go back to the original idea after reworking the mono consumption rules. Which they now have. If you pay attention, you'll see that mono is now consumed from the bottom of the rocket to the top, so that pods (presumably at the very top) will be the last to drain. Thus, all that needs doing is to switch the EVA packs from burning EVApropellant to mono and things will work as originally intended.

Things have been this way for the last couple of updates and I don't now why Squad hasn't made that change yet. Probably had other things to worry about. But anyway, I expect this feature to be implemented eventually.

[Grumman]

Things have been this way for the last couple of updates and I don't now why Squad hasn't made that change yet. Probably had other things to worry about. But anyway, I expect this feature to be implemented eventually.

With the exception of making it less likely for you to accidentally jettison a full monoprop tank, the problems that make a direct monoprop->EVA conversion troublesome still exist. Which is why I favour the one-sided approach I suggested above.

[Geschosskopf]

With the exception of making it less likely for you to accidentally jettison a full monoprop tank, the problems that make a direct monoprop->EVA conversion troublesome still exist. Which is why I favour the one-sided approach I suggested above.

To what other problems do you refer? AFAIK, the only problem was the need to restructure mono consumption so it worked from the bottom to the top of the rocket, which has now been done. If EVA ever switches to using mono, then the Kerbal will draw 5 units of mono from the ship the 1st time he goes outside. Whatever he doesn't use will return to the ship's tanks when he comes back. You will note that all (or at least most) pods have 10 units of mono per seat, so that each Kerbal can do 2 full EVAs. If you need more EVA capability than that, you can add more mono tanks to the rocket.

What you suggest above I don't see as distinguishable from what we already have.

[tater]

Nice ideas, I like the KIS/KAS related abilities others have suggested, as well. Skills need to be meaningful if they are in the game.

Many disagree, but as the player is functionally the "boss" of the program, I'd just assume have the option for pilots to be able to, you know, pilot craft, based upon skill level. Not a toggle of if they can pilot, but how good they are. An astronaut with no skill might have a decent chance of botching a landing (assuming the player lets him do it himself instead of landing it under player control). Ditto docking, etc. These lower skill leveled pilots might explain why the orbits of every planet the player visits is littered with wreckage (and stranded kerbals) from other programs