Experience Gain in Kerbin's SOI

[KerbMav]

For reference:
[url]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Experience[/url]

The logic seems to be, that distance counts more than subjective difficulty, as orbiting Kerbin (inevitable for every mission?) and planting a flag on Minmus will get the kerbonaut to level 2, while planting a flag on Mun (higher gravity and orbital speeds, therefore more difficult and risky to land and take off from) will miss level 2 by one experience point.

Level 2 is even easier to get to by simply launching from Kerbin and leaving its SOI for a moment to orbit Kerbol.
(OK, the experience here most likely comes from the extensive length of this field trip!)

Even stranger IMHO are the numbers for Moho and Eve. While it takes more dv to get to Moho, it is much more difficult to return from Eve. One could argue that landing on Eve is much easier, being able to use the atmosphere to brake from interplanetary speeds and parachutes to finally land, but as the new rank is only awarded upon return to Kerbin, maybe orbiting (Moho > Eve) and surface operations (Eve < Moho) should be treated differently.

Jool's moons all award the same XP despite varying difficulties to landing on/taking of from them.
Flying in Jool's atmosphere awards less points than in Laythe's, although it theoretically takes more effort to leave Jool's atmosphere again due to its higher gravity/orbital speed and flying on Laythe is checked anyway during any landing.

[Wjolcz]

I think the KXP should be based on the type of missions the crew takes part in and be limited to SOIs.

For example: Kerbals can get up to two stars in Kerbin SOI, but to get XP they need to complete contracts. Then if you want them to earn more send them to other planets and make them complete tasks there to get another 2 stars.

The current system is kind of silly and the abilities the crew can get aren't that amazing. Just sightseeing isn't worth 5 stars. Edited November 23, 2015 by Veeltch

[Xavven]

I agree this could use some tuning. It would take someone half a day to hand-pick experience values for each celestial body based on difficulty, instead of basing it purely on distance. Landing on Pol is not the same as landing on Tylo.

[Alshain]

[quote name='Veeltch']I think the KXP should be based on the type of missions the crew takes part in and be limited to SOIs.

For example: Kerbals can get up to two stars in Kerbin SOI, but to get XP they need to complete contracts. Then if you want them to earn more send them to other planets and make them complete tasks there to get another 2 stars.

The current system is kind of silly and the abilities the crew can get aren't that amazing. Just sightseeing isn't worth 5 stars.[/QUOTE]

No thank you. It's tedious and annoying enough as it is.

They need to remove "Plant a Flag" from the list, simply landing on a planet/moon should get max XP for that body. Getting every Kerbal out of the craft to plant a blasted flag just so you can take it back down again to avoid having 20 flags in the same spot is just stupid. How much do you really learn from shoving a pole in the ground?

[Xavven]

[quote name='Alshain']No thank you. It's tedious and annoying enough as it is.

They need to remove "Plant a Flag" from the list, simply landing on a planet/moon should get max XP for that body. Getting every Kerbal out of the craft to plant a blasted flag just so you can take it back down again to avoid having 20 flags in the same spot is just stupid. How much do you really learn from shoving a pole in the ground?[/QUOTE]

I guess it forces you to EVA that Kerbal, because technically that would be more of an experience than huddling in the lander capsule, but still, I agree with you here. Gameplay should be favored in this case. Remove the tedium.

[Wjolcz]

[quote name='Alshain']No thank you. It's tedious and annoying enough as it is.

They need to remove "Plant a Flag" from the list, simply landing on a planet/moon should get max XP for that body. Getting every Kerbal out of the craft to plant a blasted flag just so you can take it back down again to avoid having 20 flags in the same spot is just stupid. How much do you really learn from shoving a pole in the ground?[/QUOTE]

OK, maybe the SOI thing isn't the best idea, but I'd rather complete a few harder missions in LKO and get the same amount of XP I would get at Duna than go there and go back only because I need a star, or whatever. I mean, if we really have to have it I'd rather have it work like this than going places and getting skills for doing nothing.

[I]"You went to Rome and been there for an hour. Well done! Now you know how to repair your broken car back at home!"[/I] Edited November 24, 2015 by Veeltch

[Tex_NL]

[quote name='Xavven'][quote name='Alshain']No thank you. It's tedious and annoying enough as it is.

They need to remove "Plant a Flag" from the list, simply landing on a planet/moon should get max XP for that body. Getting every Kerbal out of the craft to plant a blasted flag just so you can take it back down again to avoid having 20 flags in the same spot is just stupid. How much do you really learn from shoving a pole in the ground?[/QUOTE]
I guess it forces you to EVA that Kerbal, because technically that would be more of an experience than huddling in the lander capsule, but still, I agree with you here. Gameplay should be favored in this case. Remove the tedium.[/QUOTE]
Then 'plant a flag on ...' should be changed to 'EVA on ...'
Getting them outside to earn KXP isn't not a lot of additional work. Everybody planting a flag just doesn't make sense.

[Alshain]

[quote name='Tex_NL']Then 'plant a flag on ...' should be changed to 'EVA on ...'
Getting them outside to earn KXP isn't not a lot of additional work. Everybody planting a flag just doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

That would be fine too. The annoying part waiting on the stupid flag planting animation so you can just take it back down again.

[tater]

It should not be soi based at all, it should be based on total time in flight combined with actually using what skills are available to them. Add missions to repair things (like a satellite or station you had a contract for, earlier I the career) for engineers. Science gathered by scientists, and piloting (time and milestones/missions---like rendezvous, landing, etc).

[Xavven]

To be honest, though, the whole Kerbal XP thing makes no sense to begin with. I don't see why an engineer has to go to orbit and back to learn how to repack a parachute. Shouldn't s/he know how to do that before getting in the spacecraft? And then how the heck did the manufactures initially pack the chute to begin with -- have THEY all been to space?

Experience points make sense in combat and adventure games, but I just can't see it being executed well here. In all my career play-throughs it hasn't been a game mechanic that's really added to the fun of the game. These are all good ideas for incrementally removing the tedium, but I would just as soon get rid of this game mechanic altogether.

[Tex_NL]

Personally I am still a fan of training Kerbals at KSC.
Some time ago it was suggested and discussed to give Kerbals basic training (one or two stars) based on the development of the KSC buildings. Different upgraded buildings (or combination of buildings) gives certain professions their first levels even before they get hired.

[tater]

[quote name='Xavven']To be honest, though, the whole Kerbal XP thing makes no sense to begin with. I don't see why an engineer has to go to orbit and back to learn how to repack a parachute. Shouldn't s/he know how to do that before getting in the spacecraft? And then how the heck did the manufactures initially pack the chute to begin with -- have THEY all been to space?

Experience points make sense in combat and adventure games, but I just can't see it being executed well here. In all my career play-throughs it hasn't been a game mechanic that's really added to the fun of the game. These are all good ideas for incrementally removing the tedium, but I would just as soon get rid of this game mechanic altogether.[/QUOTE]

I agree. so the training idea above also makes sense.

It's pretty stupid when I'm preparing a mission (with LS) for someplace distant, and I want skilled crew (engineers, usually) for possible repairs, but they need to be sent on such a mission unprepared first, so I can send them prepared... makes no sense.

[KerbMav]

[quote name='tater']I want skilled crew (engineers, usually) for possible repairs, but they need to be sent on such a mission unprepared first, so I can send them prepared... makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

This could rather easily be remedied by adding not even a full gainable XP to the Kerbin SOI - kerbonauts could than be trained to level three, which gives every specialization access to all important skills - so, without the "short hop into Kerbols orbit".

[url]http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Specialization[/url]

The only really "critical" specialization is engineer anyway.
Pilots learn how to point at certain nodes of the nav-ball (level 4 and 5 practically useless as of now), the player can do this by himself really.
Scientists get better at lab work up to level 5 (taking experiments and resetting them available at level 0), usefull but not that relevant on an expedition.
Engineers repack chutes (1), repair wheels (2) and landing legs (3) and get better at drilling ore up to level 5 - a damaged landing leg can kill an expedition or at least thwart multiple planned landings.

Scientists are good as they are IMHO, they fulfill their duty of operating experiments and the more experienced brainiacs squeeze out relevant data faster in their labs.

Pilots get pretty much useless after the first SAS capable probe core - might change in the future if they are needed to control probes without telemetry from KSC and/or get better at aiming at a node without pulling their flightstick back and forth at 100% until they settle the ship in the new direction.

Engineers are quite good as well - maybe they could gain the ability to build struts outside of the VAB.

[Tex_NL]

[quote name='KerbMav']...
Scientists get better at lab work up to level 5 (taking experiments and resetting them available at level 0), usefull but not that relevant on an expedition.
...
Scientists are good as they are IMHO, they fulfill their duty of operating experiments and the more experienced brainiacs squeeze out relevant data faster in their labs.
...[/QUOTE]

If you'd ask me scientists are overpowered. In a lab you'll need scientists, power AND time to reset a goo container or materials bay. On EVA, with any rookie scientist, you just click it and ...POOF... it resets like magic.
Operating experiments on EVA should be at least one star. Resetting at least two star.

[Pthigrivi]

I don't have any problem with Kerbals gaining experience from going to new places. Its a totally legit game mechanic that unlike auto-training based on building upgrades specifically rewards exploration. My main beef is that you have to return to Kerbin to benefit from it. If kerbals could level-up in flight then you would still be rewarded for exploring and you wouldn't have to tediously repeat missions to level up new crews. You could send a few moderately leveled kerbals and a few green recruits on a Jool 5 and by the time you had visited a few moons everyone would be up to snuff.

[KrazyKrl]

While being a decent Xp gain on its own, this is yet another feature that could benefit from contract tie ins.
XP from orbits/landing/EVA/etc. could stay; but the majority of exp should come from contracts that explicitly reward experience values.

Contracts should be the thread that ties the entire game together as a whole, but right now; they are more of a separate system on-the-side.

[Auriga_Nexus]

The only thing I can see experience being good for is for efficiency modifiers, like science XP for science labs and engineering XP for ISRU's. But seriously, if your pilot can't even run the full SAS program why is he even up there? Real astronauts go through years of training before they even see the inside of a capsule, and I don't see why Kerbonauts need to do things differently.