Experience

[KerikBalm]

For your pilot suggestions, I object to the "gain experience faster" multipliers, the "hold position", the circularize orbit, and i'm not sure about the execute maneuver. I'm not sure about the aerobraking prediction. I think we definitely do need a hold heading relative to the surface/horizon though. I would also add the ability to level the ship relative to the horizon

Engineer.... sorry, but I think the broken solar panels would be broken beyond repair... same with repairing engines. As to the resource transfer, that would mean that I couldn't do resource transfer on probe vessels... I don't like that. I think fuel lines/engines/rcs would be too complicated for field work, but I'm fine with strut placement. I also really want the ability to reassign action groups in flight.

FYI, the isru efficiency bonus or engineers is just a straight multiplier to the yield of drills

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Engineer

25x the ore production at level 5, same energy consumption... its quite good. A lvl 5 engineer with one drill can mine as much ore as an unmanned probe with 25 drills. (assuming sufficient power and the same ore abundance)

Scientists - they shoudn't be the only ones to take eva reports an surface samples... I do wish that they boosted data recovery and transmission. Some data you max out what you can transmit/recover after 1 transmission/recovery... like the thermometer.

Others, like the materials bay, require multiple transmissions before there is no more science gain from transmitting... same for recovery. I would have a lvl2 scientist make 1 data transmission/recovery count as 2. A lvl 4 would count as 3 recoveries, and a lvl 5 woul count as 4 recoveries. So 1 maxed scientist taking transmitting data would have the effect of 4x transmissions of that data... same for recovery.

Also, I don't think the scientist should be involved with ISRU, they should be able to operate the lab at the start (every class has a bonus from the start, at lvl 0). I don't even know what this impactor sensor is... that is not stock.

Nor do I know what you mean here: "Load Samples into Materials Bay from Science Lab"

The research spee bonuses are fine with me... I'd still like lvl 4 and 5 to allow you to make "hybrid classes". A scientist tat can also hold prograde/retrograde/SAS? yes please.

 

 

[Pthigrivi]

Check the spoiler. Those were ideas for how better to make experiments more rewarding. At the moment science is probably the most grind-inducing element of the game, and worse, its needlessly fussy and tends to take away from the enjoyment of flying. I actually recommend making most experiments automatic and %100 transmittable in principle, and letting Roverdude's transmitter system handle any losses. 

 

As for the pilots, Im not personally interested in maneuver execution or orbit circularization, but these have been widely requested abilities over the years and I don't think adding them at level 4 or 5 would break the game or make things too mech-jeby. Some are conveniences, some make for fine-tuning thats extremely difficult by hand. Hold position for instance would be very useful for skycranes. Aerobrake prediction would be maybe the most important skill you could add for Pilots to keep them useful. Adding KAS like features is maybe the most requested addition to the skills system and I have to say it could be a ton of fun. Probably it should involve KIS like containers and should really only be for mounting relatively small parts. 

The idea behind the Pilots experience multipliers was from a thread not long ago. The logic was that they are essentially commanders, and at higher levels help other Kerbals learn faster. From a gameplay standpoint its intended to be a balance against scientist bonuses and engineer bonuses that increase over time. It keeps Pilots vital even after probe cores have been unlocked that replicate most of what a pilot does. 

You're probably right about surface samples though. Generally I feel like its important to emphasize synergies and make each discipline vital, but it should definitely still be possible for a pilot to collect a sample. 

 

[pandaman]

I tend to think that the whole XP system could do with a hit of a rewrite.

A lot of good ideas are suggested above, but here's my 2c...

As an easy reference for how skilled an individual is then the 'star' method currently is quite good.  I do think that 'multi disciplined' crew should be a thing though.

I think experience should be gained by not only doing new stuff, similar to how it is now, but also at a slower, decreasing, rate by doing the same stuff repeatedly.  An example of this would be how RL pilots log their hours, more hours equals more experience.

Some form of on the ground training in exchange for funds and time makes sense too.

 

 

[Waxing_Kibbous]

If anyone is still confused about current Kerbal experience and how to get it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUD6883ZMCo

[KerikBalm]

What I would like to see is hiring already experienced kerbals.

Why should I pay over half a million (that's enough for a few disposabe Mun/minmus rockets, or even a couple isposabe duna rockets) for an inexperienced Kerbal?

I would like the kerbals for hire to be 1-2 stars behind the max ranked kerbal of their class that you have at the astronaut complex.

So... If you level up a scientist to lvl 4, then bring him/her back to kerbin, you would then be able to hir lvl 2 or 3 scientists (adjust number as needed for balance, but I think 3 levels behind to too much, and 0 levels bein your max ranked kerbal is too little)

Right now engineers and kerbals get more effective at higher levels, even if it is just faster "farming" (ore drilling or sciencing in the lab)... but the pilots don't gain anything from lvls 4 and 5.

Add the ability to level the ship relative to the horizon, and hold a heading relative to the horizon/surface, and I'd be happy.

Maybe hold an angle of attack as well... like always 4 degrees from prograde, for example.

[Warzouz]

Yes I'm very bothered with the need to return to Kerbin to get XP¨awards. I use the "Field Experience" mod which should be stock.

A middle solution would be to add a "training pod part", like the mobile lab, which would allow Kerbals to turn XP into level with some time (few days). That type of part would be a nice addition to space stations. Also, a space station with this part would allow to validate "rescue missions"

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I like the idea of a part that can act as a validator for exp- perhaps to balance it it would need to transmit experience data, then X amount of time later receive it from Kerbin to make it official. Come to think of it this would be a cool mod. The kerbal has to be there for broadcast, but can leave and do other things while the application gets approved- when it is approved they then have to enter the pod to become upgraded.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah in one of my earlier musings about habitation I suggested a training module for exactly that. People ask all the time for "base parts" but unless they're tied into the gameplay and there's some benefit for having them they're just roll-play dead weight. This was the more complete suggestion on 'Happiness'.

Quote

Happiness - Kerbals leave the launch-pad with 100% "happiness". After that, a lone kerbal will deplete at 1% per day, meaning they will reach zero in 100 days. For each additional kerbal on board, Happiness depletes at half the rate, meaning 2 kerbals will be happy for 200 days, 3 kerbals will be happy for 400 days, 4 kerbals 800 days etc. At the time of reaching a goal Experience pays out at 50% for unhappy kerbals and 150% for kerbals at 100% happiness. The whole experience system needs some major work, and obviously if this was part of it everything would have to be balanced around it to make interplanetary missions more rewarding.

Aside from bringing extra kerbals, Happiness can be extended with the following modules (Percentages stack with multi-kerbal bonuses, but not with other module bonuses)

Small Living Quarters - 2.5m cylinder

- 2t

- 4200F

- draws 1e/s

- Reduces happiness depletion for up to 3 kerbals by 75%

 

Large Living Quarters: - 3.75m cylinder

- 5t

- 6800F

- draws 3 e/s

- Reduces happiness depletion for up to 6 kerbals by 75%

 

Inflatable Habitat Module: - 2.5m inline inflatable taurus expands to 5m

- 7t

- 11000F

- draws 5e/s (when deployed)

- Reduces happiness depletion for up to 12 kerbals by 75%

 

Training Module - 2.5m inline Dodecahedron approx 3.75m wide

- 5.5t

- 9500F

- draws 2 e/s while dormant and 12 e/s while operating

- Replenishes kerbals' Happiness up to 90% and allows level-up without returning to Kerbin

So 3 kerbals with a small living quarters will arrive at Duna at 75% Happiness, and 6 Kerbals with 2 small or one large quarters will arrive at 97%. You could of course just bring a training module, but it would come at a steep cost.

At the very least they could make leveling in flight part of an Astronaut Complex upgrade. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[AbacusWizard]

I do think the requirement to return home in order to "cash in" the experience points makes a certain amount of sense--as I see it, the kerbalnauts are debriefed on their experiences, discuss with admin/HR/trainers/etc., and incorporate what they've learned into their further training. However, it would be very nice if this could be done (even with some limitations) on board a sufficiently advanced space station as well.

[CSE]

I, too, like the idea of a 'sufficiently advanced' space station being able to serve as a mission end-point. It makes a lot of sense for a colonizing career style - anyone fancy returning to Kerbin from Urlum in 64k scale - and it also supplies a gameplay purpose for players who like to build reasonably-sized stations and moonbases. So far, a fullly-featured Kerbal space station can be quite a lot smaller than the I.S.S. Of course a player can add repeated modules for the look of it, but purpose is nice. How about:

- Have a mission HQ module, which could serve as the start and end point for certain contracts' funds and reputation. I wouldn't replace the need to launch/return from the home planet entirely, just to make this alternative available to the contracts API.

- Give the science lab the ability to cash in experience points for stars for scientists, up to the level of the best scientist on the station. You'd still need to return home to go beyond this level.

- Similar parts for pilots ('flight simulator'?) and engineers ('workshop'?).

At 5t - 10t each and fair electric charge requirements, a station or moonbase with all of these would be a significant endeavour. But once you had it, it'd genuinely work as a home from home.

[suicidejunkie]

On 12/22/2015 at 5:08 PM, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah in one of my earlier musings about habitation I suggested a training module for exactly that. People ask all the time for "base parts" but unless they're tied into the gameplay and there's some benefit for having them they're just roll-play dead weight. This was the more complete suggestion on 'Happiness'.

At the very least they could make leveling in flight part of an Astronaut Complex upgrade. 

Two things to add to that:

1) A wider variety of happiness depletion modifiers

2) A bonus for being landed, possibly scaled to the gravity.  Happiness could then be recovered using a decent habitation module on the mun, but require a really palatial one in orbit.

 

 

As to experience gaining, would it be possible to compromise somewhat?

EG:

1) Returning to Kerbin gets stars as now.   2) If XP exceeds twice the requirement, then the star is gained in flight.

That would mean you can get 1 star from either orbiting and returning, or you could also get 1 star by visiting mun without going home.  A minmus flag-planter would get one star in flight and gain their second star after returning home.

Or if you do a minmus flag + solar orbit + munar flyby, you'd have 2 stars in flight, and gain the 3rd after you land on kerbin.

[pandaman]

I'd love to see a better experience and training/skills system implemented.  Exactly in what form I don't really know, though there are many good and interesting suggestions on here.

One thing that does concern me a little is the danger of it being too detailed on an individual kerbal level.  I really like the idea of each kerbal having their own skillset and specialities, it makes training them more worthwhile and relevant, crew selection would be a more important part of mission planning too, and players would have more investment/attachment to individuals which would increase immersion.  But I don't want to be running a kerbal character RPG rather than a space program.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah at one point I'd been thinking Kerbals could cross-train using a simple skill tree. They would start out as level 0 Cadets, and after earning a level could chose to advance in either piloting, science, or engineering. This way you could have a Pilot with some basic science abilities, or an Engineer who could add SAS. Because you'd have to spend a level to spread out specialization would still be important to gain the more valuable upper levels, but you'd have at least some options there. 

I still like this idea, but I wonder if the fussiness is worth it. A lot of aspects of this game have become really complicated (and would become even more so if a habitation mechanic were added) and there's a certain elegant simplicity to having kerbals just auto-level in flight. I feel the same way about experiments, that most really could just be automatic, bringing the focus of the game back to the act of building, flying, and exploring. 

Edited January 2, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

14 hours ago, suicidejunkie said:

2) A bonus for being landed, possibly scaled to the gravity.  Happiness could then be recovered using a decent habitation module on the mun, but require a really palatial one in orbit.

This is pretty interesting. It could just be a habitation module dynamic that factored for landed and non-landed vessels, or, perhaps much later it could scale for how much gravity was on the planet or mun, or even artificial gravity using centrifuges. That's probably beyond what I could hope to see in stock any time soon but a clever consideration.

[Pthigrivi]

So this has come up in the devnotes so I thought maybe we could try to have a productive discussion about how this system could be fleshed out and refined. Some of the common themes seem to be:

 

- What is the best mechanism for earning experience?

- Should Kerbals be able to cross-train and gain abilities from other disciplines?

- How can skills be better tailored to career progression, keeping pilots, engineers and scientists vital from start to endgame?

- What additional skills could make the higher tiers more exiting and expand gameplay?

[tater]

The problem is that skills don't actually have much of a use. Pilot skill certainly has things that make play easier, but that's actually odd from a gameplay standpoint (i.e.: it's harder, earlier). The trouble of course being that the pilot skill is just a player aid, since the player still has to do everything manually, anyway. For the pilot skill to actually be the pilot's skill, any use of navball markers (hold prograde, retrograde, etc) should be required to use pilot skill, and the skill level should determine how well it holds the marker. Ie: the player can be the best pilot possible in KSP just by eyeball, but if the pilot kerbal stinks, the player ends up with a bad burn anyway. Short of that, pilot skill is meaningless, IMO.

Engineers have a few useful skills, even if repacking chutes is pretty unrealistic. KIS makes them more useful... short of that, I don't see it as a big deal.

Scientist skill is only useful to slightly reduce grind via higher science return, which honestly should only apply to sample collection, and maybe EVA reports.

In short, cross training only serves to make multi-herbal craft useless, and skills are mostly useless anyway since kerbals cannot do anything on their own. The entire paradigm of skill levels only makes sense in the same way that career as a tycoon game only makes sense---kerbals need to be able to do their jobs without the player involved, or neither matter.

[regex]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The problem is that skills don't actually have much of a use.

This, right here, is the crux of the matter, and why Kerbal classes are such a bad mechanic.

The only useful skill that pilots offer me is their ability to turn on the SAS.

The only useful ability that scientists offer me is their presence in a lab.

The only useful ability that engineers offer me is the ability to fix a flat, and even then they're pretty much useless.

I have no use for pilots past level 0, scientists past level 0 (I'm a patient guy), and engineers past level 3 (if I use them at all).

My personal suggestion would be to remove the classes altogether, let all Kerbals do those things that they used to be able to do (pack chutes, fix flats, hit the "t" button, etc...). and allow Kerbals to pick an engineering or science specialty at level 2, with the engineering and scientist bonuses to drilling and research scaled back so that they start increasing at level 2 based on their specialty.  Also only allow science instrument resets with a lab on the same craft.

[tater]

Yeah, the idea was to encourage people to actually send a crew instead of a single guy, but it's really just roleplaying without game mechanics to make it worth the trouble. 

A better mechanic for the goal of sending multiple astronauts would be something like @RoverDude's USI-LS, but with the "habitation" somehow improved by having multiple kerbals---kerbals are gregarious, and need friends around to be happy.

[adsii1970]

What I would like to see is an overhaul of the experience system - even in sandbox mode. I've put some thought into this, but until now, never really thought of where to put my ideas until now. So, if it were me, all the other Kerbalnauts except for Jeb, Bob, Bill, and Valentina would have their experience level begin at 0. These four would start off at mid-level - at 2. Each level would add a new skill possessed by the Kerbal. I would actually do away with the five levels and stick with four:

Anyhow, here's how I think it should be broken down:

Pilot:

• Level 0: Switch on/off SAS
• Level 1: Adds a bit more stability to SAS (5%)
• Level 2: For atmospheric craft - 5% fuel efficiency; for spacecraft, RCS increased sensitivity/efficiency.
• Level 3: For atmospheric craft - 2% fuel efficiency (in addition to #2); for spacecraft, batteries more efficient.
• Level 4: More stability to SAS (2%)

Scientist:

• Level 0: Monitor the various goo containers and create report.
• Level 1: Monitor and report on various EVA experiments and create a report. Increases science points by 1%
• Level 2: Ability to reset experiments on EVA, collect soil samples, increase science points by 2%
• Level 3: Ability to analyze soil samples on planet/moon/asteroid surface, generate more efficent reports, increase science points by 5%
• Level 4: (not sure, still working on this one)

Engineer:

• Level 0: Able to repack chutes and change tires.
• Level 1: Able to repair solar panels on EVA, batteries more efficient by 5%, reactors more efficient by 5%
• Level 2: Able to repair control surfaces on EVA, solar panels more efficient by 5%
• Level 3: Craft 2% more resistant to damage, able to repair antennae.
• Level 4: Craft 5% more resistant to damage, able to repair 30% of heat damage to craft

[Pthigrivi]

@tater that would be cool. I love USI but probably a simpler mechanic would be nicer for stock. I appreciate the homesick deal for encouraging crew rotation but there's probably a cleaner way just to have one variable to worry about. Just having a purpose for habitation modules would be fantastic. 

@regex So training would only increase mining and labwork? Would filling out skills like these seem worth it?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[regex]

29 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

@regex So training would only increase mining and labwork? Would filling out skills like these seem worth it?

No, because classes are meaningless game constructs.

It's pretty clear to me from the given lore (spoiler videos) that Kerbals have mission control and are in contact with their astronauts, which makes many of the tasks and the whole concept of "experience" fairly meaningless, taking a cue from real life.  And I feel we can take cues from real life here, unlike a probe-core first mentality (since overly enthusiastic aliens wanting to be first in space makes sense to me).

We don't send astronauts up to the ISS or to the moon or even into orbit without extensive training on the mission architecture so it makes little sense that an engineer wouldn't be able to hold a heading, or press the button in the spacecraft that does so.  Everyone who goes up to the ISS is trained on the Soyuz so they know how to get it back home; you never know what kind of emergency you might encounter.  I can, however, see a case for mission specialists trained in research, geology, or handling specific non-mission-critical (mission-critical being the safety of the crew and the craft) gear.  This means that the pilot class is pretty much useless because everyone should be able to handle those tasks, press those buttons.  Therefore, all Kerbals should be able to handle the mission architecture, repair or replace parts (they get help from mission control, just like real life).  Specialties should introduce quality of life features like increased research or mining.

Your piloting skills introduce non-manual piloting, which goes against KSP's 1950's USAF "man-in-the-middle" paradigm, so I consider those a wash, similar to delta-V (which should always be shown) and tracking information which should be provided by ground control or on-board instruments (every capsule has an altitude radar, IIRC).

Kerbal classes just introduce situations where certain Kerbals become useless throughout the game, there's little reason to invest in them past a certain point.  Getting rid of the classes makes all Kerbals similarly use(ful/less), with the addition of specialties just adding things they can do better.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I mean Im not particularly compelled by questions about realism. Its a game and I understand that abstractions are necessary. What classes have the opportunity to do is create different roles for different crew members and allow players to invest and develop kerbals themselves rather than treating them as cargo. There are ways to solve the practical problem you're having, like the ability to cross-train basic skills, but perhaps if the idea of training kerbals doesn't appeal to you in general there's little that would satisfy you here. 

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah I mean Im not particularly compelled by questions about realism. Its a game and I understand that abstractions are necessary. What classes have the opportunity to do is create different roles for different crew members and allow players to invest and develop kerbals themselves rather than treating them as cargo. There are ways to solve the practical problem you're having, like the ability to cross-train basic skills, but perhaps if the idea of training kerbals doesn't appeal to you in general there's little that would satisfy you here. 

Investing in Kerbals makes sense if they're always useful.  Training Kerbals makes sense before they're on a mission.  The current system, and a lot of proposed systems that want to leverage Kerbal classes, means that I hire two or four scientists and a ton of pilots during the career; the scientists hide in labs and the pilots do everything else.  I don't bother caring about experience because their abilities beyond 0th level are fairly useless and putting leveled scientists into a lab just makes then useless faster.  All Kerbals should be useful all the time.  I want to want to bring them along, not be forced into specific missions.

[Pthigrivi]

I mean I know your pessimism is legendary so I won't push the issue too far. I guess my concern is that without specialization there's no reason to bring more than one kerbal anywhere, nor any reason to think of them as a team. I agree that squad seems averse to mech-jeb style automation but given that they're willing to lock on different targets it seems like there's some basic level of automation they're comfortable with. The ability to hold position for skycranes for instance could certainly be useful, as would aerobrake prediction, and neither pulls the player out of the experience. Another idea I remember somone offering was giving reputation boosts for having completed missions with high level pilots. Basic KAS and field science bonuses could also be helpful. I understand you're not crazy about the status quo, I was just curious what kinds of skills would make you want to bring them along.

On the experience gathering paradigm, I know I seem to be in the minority but I actually think the skills-as-exploration-reward is really good even if it isn't realistic in the strictest sense. Just from a pure standpoint of gameplay it makes it a kind of reward that can only be gained by getting out there and landing on other planets. The fact that you cant just buy it is kind of the point.

[Kerbart]

I don't think the classes are bad per sé; if any Kerbal could be trained to do any task you'd be training two or three “Superkerbals” for a long duration mission and off you go. Now you need to make sure you have enough Kerbals of each kind needed. Given that you in career you tend to get your Kerbals from rescue missions, it provides an interesting logistical challenge to make sure you get the right mix trained on time to go places.

If the tasks the Kerbals can provide are useful and an incentive to take them with you I don't see what's wrong with that.

After absorbing what's been posted recently, here a few of my thoughts. They're fairly incoherent and not meant as a suggestion on how the game should be, rather on how certain improvements could be implemented

SAS/Pilots

Right now, advanced autopilots are superior to early game pilots, even when your pilot is Jeb or Valentina. My suggestion would be:

• SAS units all offer only one two gizmo's: hold course, and hold target. However, the SAS units higher up in the tech tree offer better accuracy and better PID controllers (with less overshooting)
• Pilots now offer the incredible advantage of additional gizmo's, making it more attractive to have them on board.
• Probably impossible to implement, but how awesome would it be for Pilots to have an autodrive function. Now it becomes practical to drive you rover halfway across the moon!

Engineers

In my mind, EVA Struts should be made stock (thank you @DMagic) First of all, it's an amazing mod; an elegant solution for wobbly space stations and compound expedition craft. Second of all, it's an amazing elegant and fluid demonstration why you'd need engineers (as only an engineer can place them). It's one of those tasks where I feel like “yeah, you'd need engineer for that.” Make repair two-star jobs, and give engineers an upgrade ability with three stars. Certain parts (solar cells, antennas, perhaps batteries) should have a high-tier upgrade function (automatically turning newly mounted parts in their high-performing version), and engineers should be able to perform such upgrades in the field (maybe it's a software upload, or a circuit-board replacement).

In stock, docking baseparts together is nothign short of a sheer nightmare. Why not give an engineer a "nudge docking port" ability that can make two docking ports in close vicinity snap together? Of course you can't move the hole in the hull around but one could roleplay that a docking port is mounted on a hull adapter which allows for some limited play. But only by  a skilled (3 star?) Kerbal engineer.

 

Scientists

For me this is where the game is lacking right now. Why scientists don't get better EVA reports, better surface samples, better crew reports than regular Kerbals (and going up with their skill set) is beyond me.