Kerbal experience

[Warzouz]

What do you think about the Kerbal XP stuff

Q1 : XP progression rate, compared to science progression rate (too quick, too slow).

Q2 : Need to land on kerbin/retrieve to gain and levels XP

Q3 : XP is grindy ?

 

Here is what I think :

Q1 : The XP progression rate is too slow compared to science. You can unlock all the parts with science and still not have any level 3 kerbals. I find that strange. Either way, science unlocks too quickly, or XP is gained too slow.

Q2 : XP should be gained during flight as rewards for milestones do. (there is a simple and nice mod for that) so Kerbals wouldn't have to return to Kerbin.

Q3 : I find XP much more grindy than science. Having to plant flag seems a little stupid as you get points for landing.

 

What do you think ?

[MrOsterman]

I've been thinking that too lately, especially the "plant a flag" thing.  I fly 3 Kerbals to the mun and all of them need to get out, plant a flag and get back in the pod.  I also had some recruit level Kerbals end up on the moon, so I sent them a station to do science in while I worked out a rescue plan only to get them off the mun, debrief them, and then send them BACk to the mun to get them (and their new level up) back into the lab to generate science faster.  Seems a little odd.

I'm also hitting some points in my game where I'm just at a grind.  I've got 1500 science sitting in the bank, but I don't have enough cash yet to upgrade my RnD center so I'm now looking at contracts to get me over that hump.

I may break down and hack my files just to feel like I'm getting a little more progress out of this, that or I need to really focus on getting out of the Kerbol SOI and get my guys to try flying around the other planets.  I just feel like that's a really big investment and risk still just to get to that 3rd star....

 

[Tex_NL]

Q1: That completely depends on your personal playing style. Mun orbit + Minmus Flag + a quick trip outside Kerbins SOI will result in a *** rating. So you can have *** Kerbals well before you get your first R&D upgrade.

Q2 + Q3: Here I have to agree with you but I also feel compelled to inform you this has been suggested and discussed to death.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Tex_NL

[Venusgate]

I think ultimately xp is a side minigame. Focusing on it doesn't kick your career into overdrive, and ignoring it doesn't cripple you.

I think it could be made more interesting for it's own sake, but it's current state is at worst a buzzing fly.

 

[r4pt0r]

If just landing on a body is good enough for tourists, it should be good enough for our kerbonauts. Good point, getting out and planting a flag 3 times is a pain in the booster.

[juanml82]

You can get kerbals to level 3 without planting the flag (which is bothersome): land on Mun, land on Minmus, get out of Kerbin SOI and return

[Torgo]

XP should be linked to actually doing things germaine to their profession, with the ability for the other professions to learn, but at a slower rate

XP for visiting bodies, and for extended missions. Can't tell me you don't learn a thing or two spending 6 months on a space station in Kerbin orbit!

Pilots - main XP is from flying craft to different SOIs, and also by length of mission. Get a smaller gain when a scientist or engineer earns their main XP.

Scientists - main XP is from doing science. The more they do, the more they gain. They'd also get a small bump from space flight experience (pilot's main XP)

Engineers - this would be the toughest one to flesh out in stock, but would get points for testing or fixing things, station building and EVAs. There could also be some science type things created for them to do in addition to part testing contracts. 

In order to make Kerbal pilots more viable, make the mission time XP bump larger if an actual pilot is onboard. 

Last change to make to stock would be an academy building as part of the complex. Your new Kerbs could learn up to 1 star level less than their instructor, based on time spent studying (or simulating). Simulator points would be earned at 1/3 the normal rate, and could be earned twice. (i.e. A mission that was worth 6 points in actual play would be 2 points as a sim. A Kerb could complete the sim twice). Simulations would only be available for parts and bodies that have been unlocked. An unmanned probe to a body that returns some science would unlock that body. 

I'd also expand it from 5 stars to 10 stars, with each star level requiring double the previous level..

1 star - 1 point
2 stars - 2 points at 1 star (3 total)
3 stars - 4 points at 2 stars (7 total) and so on. 

The real detail work would be in balancing out the actual value of missions based on SOI, mission type, science done, etc. I haven't given that much thought yet. 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Torgo

[I_Killed_Jeb]

I actually have learned to like the system, it has caused me to design ridiculous space buses to take my ENTIRE kerbonaut roster to different planets etc.

 

That being said I agree it can be much better implemented moving forward.

[Warzouz]

Yes this is true, I'm organise artificial crew rotations on my space station to climb the XP ladder. I need an excel sheet to manage who did what and need to do what before going home.

It's kind of RP (after all, returning hope is a reward for kerbals !) but it's sometime tiresome.

I know we can get 3 stars kerbal by doing a kerbol SOI peek, but at that time the entire scienc tree is already unlocked. It's strange. Want why can't the SOI peek go to Duna an learn thing on the way there. It's not logical.

 

Hopefully, the "Field Experience" mod works like a charm and do exactly that. But it's a mod and it should be stock.

[Pthigrivi]

9 hours ago, Torgo said:

XP should be linked to actually doing things germaine to their profession, with the ability for the other professions to learn, but at a slower rate

 

The trouble with this is though it sounds sensible it's more prone to exploits and grind than what we already have. For instance what's to stop a player from putting a pilot in orbit and time warping them to 5 stars? Even if you put a cap on it, how does the extra step add anything to gameplay? The scientists are better, but the engineers are worse and could lead to real tedium. The real question is how does adding additional minutiae make the experience more fun? 

I tend to side with Warzouz. The basic concept that experience gains from exploration is sound, the system just needs some tweaks and depth. 

Edited December 2, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[jros83]

5 hours ago, Warzouz said:

What do you think about the Kerbal XP stuff

Q1 : XP progression rate, compared to science progression rate (too quick, too slow).

Q2 : Need to land on kerbin/retrieve to gain and levels XP

Q3 : XP is grindy ?

 

Here is what I think :

Q1 : The XP progression rate is too slow compared to science. You can unlock all the parts with science and still not have any level 3 kerbals. I find that strange. Either way, science unlocks too quickly, or XP is gained too slow.

Q2 : XP should be gained during flight as rewards for milestones do. (there is a simple and nice mod for that) so Kerbals wouldn't have to return to Kerbin.

Q3 : I find XP much more grindy than science. Having to plant flag seems a little stupid as you get points for landing.

 

What do you think ?

Q1. I think it's wonky but not in a broken way. As others have said, you can have one early mission generate a good chunk of exp, or you can play baby steps and it seems forever. In the end I think it evens itself out. I'm more about the rockets!

Q2. Baby steps. Have to start somewhere. I see the early Kerbin only science missions as training for the real thing, and training gives experience.

Q3. I've played World of Tanks/Warships, and War Thunder. I'm not the right guy to ask about if something is grindy. Compared to those grind catastrophes, nothing is "too grindy."

 

My concern is running out of ways to make money. Typically in a Career (Normal difficulty, no custom changes, including keeping reentry heat at 100%) I find myself at about the fourth tech tier completely researched or close to (I usually hold off on Aviation), with few contracts left that make enough money to really get ahead of the costs of missions. I end up having to farm the contracts that ask you to test some part on the launchpad or in atmosphere that generate, surprisingly, much more money than I would think them worth (i.e., test a parachute at 120-240m per second between 3,000 and 11,000 meters, and be rewarded around 20,000 cash for a mission that cost about 1,000 with 100% recovery). Thing is, you don't always get those contracts, and to make room for those kind of contracts I sometimes have to decline ones that want me to do something either beyond my technical capabilities at the time or beyond my personal capability with KSP in general (for instance, I still have to learn how to precisely match orbits, so I'm not comfortable accepting a Rescue mission and run the risk of failing it, for one example).

I've been gaming the system. For instance, after getting the Stayputnik, I typically strap it on to a cheap small liquid tank with the LV-909, attach that to cheap basic solid rockets (the cheap early tall ones, BACC I think), and blast it off out of Kerbin's SoI, and have it get captured by Kerbol. It does nothing on its own; there's no science on it, no extra power, no way to generate power. It's just a derelict mass captured by a star. BUT, entering Kerbol's SoI counts as both a Flyby World Achievement and "We Have Enter Orbit Around the Sun" Achievement in one cheap mission, and each Achievement generates about 30,000 cash, so it's over 60,000 right there. But it only counts once. Might be a little gamey, but in my head I justify it as Proof of Concept.

 

EDIT: Earlier I said third tech tier. It should have read fourth. I have fixed that.

Edited December 1, 2015 by jros83

[CrashTestDanny]

58 minutes ago, Warzouz said:

Hopefully, the "Field Experience" mod works like a charm and do exactly that. But it's a mod and it should be stock.

Seems to be a lot of things that are mods that ought to be stock, in my opinion... Like Kerbal Alarm Clock... But I digress...

 

To answer your questions, I always found it silly that kerbals seem to have all their capabilities at level 3 and levels 1, 2, 4, and 5 don't matter so much unless you are preserving your clock and using engineers for mining bonuses and scientists for lab bonuses.  I think the whole XP system should be re-thought and kerbal levels should play a more important role in the game and even be useful and fun (getting every kerbal out of a ship to plant their own flag on minmus  just so I can pick it up again is not fun).

 

Danny

[jros83]

36 minutes ago, CrashTestDanny said:

Seems to be a lot of things that are mods that ought to be stock, in my opinion... Like Kerbal Alarm Clock... But I digress...

 

 

That's just how the PC gaming industry is today. Developers and Publishers save cost and time by releasing a product sooner and cheaper by leaving out logical things, but make the program relatively easy to mod so private folks can do it on their own time and dollar.

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a swipe at Squad. KSP is a wonderful program that I thoroughly enjoy, and it would be ridiculous for me to attack them for participating in a trend that the majority of the gaming industry is in on.

[razark]

I find it odd that a Kerbal that has 10000 hours in high performance jet aircraft has no more experience than one that goes on a couple minute sub-orbital flight.

[monophonic]

It is the only incentive for bringing crews home in the game right now. I can think of a few other options, but none that both fit the "it's a game first" philosophy of KSP and is actually fun.

[Pthigrivi]

Actually I don't think it is an incentive for bringing them home. A level 5 kerbal stuck on the surface of Eve isn't of much use. The reward of a more experienced kerbal is that you get to use them on future missions. As many have pointed out, you don't have to return them to kerbin for that. 

E: Or rather, the incentive for return missions is there without needing to return them to KSC. Instead it incentivizes repetitive one-off missions and fails to reward more ambitious multi-world missions and body>station>body strategies. 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Kerbart]

8 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Actually I don't think it is an incentive for bringing them home. A level 5 kerbal stuck on the surface of Eve isn't of much use. The reward of a more experienced kerbal is that you get to use them on future missions. As many have pointed out, you don't have to return them to kerbin for that. 

I thought the experience levels only increase when a kerbal is returned to the astronaut center (by recovery)?

Aside from that, there's very little incentive to got to 5 stars. A pilot maxes out at 3 stars. A scientist doesn't but by the time you get them to 5 you have already unlocked the entire tree and there's little use for scientists after that (at least from a career perspective).

[AbacusWizard]

2 hours ago, razark said:

I find it odd that a Kerbal that has 10000 hours in high performance jet aircraft has no more experience than one that goes on a couple minute sub-orbital flight.

You're forgetting that the sub-orbital flight exposes the occupants of the ship to the mysterious radiation from the Van Kerman Belt, causing strange mutations that result in superpowers, such as turning invisible, stretchy limbs, and changing tires. That's what "gaining levels" is really all about.

[nadreck]

Warzouz, I do career at 50% rewards and 200% penalties and while I could come close to full science without leaving the Kerbin/Minmus/Mun SOI I usually have my first Level 3 Kerbs before I have my last 3 science sensors.

 

As for being grindy, no XP is definitely not grindy, I don't bother with flags for every single Kerb, but I do shuttle out large numbers of Kerbs when needed, I am not there in 1.0.5 yet, but in the previous version I remember a vehicle carrying 20 Kerbs that I filled with rescue Kerbs and took just out of Kerbin SOI then returned, then alternated among those kerbals on catching up on science and contracts on at the Mun and Minmus. By the time I sent my 2nd expedition to a body beyond Kerbin/Mun/Minmus more than half my Kerbals were at 3 stars and I still needed lots of science.

[Wallygator]

Experience should not be construed to be training.  

The current game mechanic fails on both elements because it combines them.

Experience should drive rep ONLY - having more experienced kerbals (that survive!) makes for good press. Send them to all kinds of places and let the experience build up ! when they make it back to kerbin with their new experiences then rep will soar.  Let then perish and their overall experience level should amplify rep loss.

Spending funds to train your kerbals should grant them capabilities to perform mission tasks.  And difficulty settings could be used to make the training investment have a half-life or to allow it to pertain ONLY to the mission in progress.

Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves regarding KSP - someone didn't think it through properly.

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

I thought the experience levels only increase when a kerbal is returned to the astronaut center (by recovery)?

Sorry, I aught to have said "shouldn't" rather than "don't." As it stands now you do have to recover them. My point was that allowing kerbals to level up in-flight doesn't disincentivize return trips, because if you leave them on the surface they aren't of much use anyway. It's a nuanced point, but for anyone who does Jool-5s or uses space stations and reusable landers the requirement to send them all the way home before seeing any benefit is a huge pain. 

I think the fact that there is as yet no real benefit to leveling kerbals beyond level 3 is an obvious sign that they intend to fill those levels with additional perks. All of this presumes that will eventually happen.

Speaking of which this discussion should probably be in the suggestions/development forum eh?

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by Pthigrivi