How to make having multiple crew useful?

[CaptRobau]

At the moment there is very little reason outside of roleplaying to have spacecraft with more than one Kerbal in them (or perhaps as backup for those in a 100 situations where you a Kerbal die on EVA). You only need one Kerbal for EVAs and the small one-man pods are easier to lug around than the bigger ones, meaning you can use smaller launch vehicles. In real-life, the advantage of a large crew is that you can do more things (such as science) while you're in orbit or on the surface of the Moon in the same time. Since we probably won't see AI Kerbals running around on Minmus, what less complex can be introduced to make larger crews have an advantage over smaller ones?

[Red Iron Crown]

This deserves some discussion, I haven't sent a multi-Kerbal mission anywhere in forever because there is no benefit and a significant mass penalty.

[Frank_G]

I totally agree that this has to be added to the stock game. There are several threads here, discussing roles for kerbals f.e. scientists, technicians, pilots and so on. Also making science experiments lasting specific time periods could add a lot of sense and use to multi kerbal crewed missions.

Edit: also more kerbals could be more effective, so a crew of 3 could generate more science than a single kerbal and so on.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Frank_G

[Atoning Unifex]

Yes this is a tricky one. I do like the idea that Kerbals have certain skills but obviously as you do everything then it sort of defeats the purpose. Perhaps you have to always have a pilot kerbal (otherwise you can't fly), but to get better science returns you need a scientist and for longer life support (when that arrives) you need a technician, so you can still do all missions with 1 kerbal but it's more efficient to use more?

Or maybe something simpler, based on the idea that life support will make it in - small pods have limited life support, larger pods have more - but to use larger pods you need a larger crew.

[Kerbart]

To answer the question in the subject line:

"By doing a bit more role-playing"

Of course you can send Jeb all by himself to Eeloo for a 600 day mission. But in reality, would you? What if he gets sick, or lonely? If only for the health of the crew (or in case the health of the crew is problematic) you'd want to send a multi-Kerbal crew.

But KSP doesn't force me to do that. Of course. KSP Also doesn't force you to not use HyperEdit, so the most efficient way for an Eeloo landing would just be to HyperEdit your ship onto its surface. Most of us apply a self-imposed rule to not do that; you can apply a similar self-imposed rule to not use single crews on long extended missions.

[Red Iron Crown]

The difference being that KSP doesn't install HyperEdit by default. Whereas it does install multiseat pods with no practical reason to use them.

[Frank_G]

I do like the idea that Kerbals have certain skills but obviously as you do everything then it sort of defeats the purpose.

I did not mean skills, i mean jobs... 1 kerbal can repair stuff, 1 kerbal can fly the ship and 3 kerbals are scientists... So you need at least 3 of them... one who has the skill to pilot that insane thingie, one that keeps it running and at least one that can do SCIENCE... losing the mechanic and 2 landing legs would be catastrophic, losing the scientists would result in... well no science and losing the pilot... go get a rescue mission up. And as mentioned above... when the tasks you assign your kerbals to need time to be executed, having more crew will of course speed up the mission.

[Frank_G]

And Kerbart... thank you Thats the way not only KSP but games should be PLAYED.

[Greenfire32]

In earlier versions of KSP, there was a crew tab that looked like it had spots for scientists, engineers, etc etc. I think it shouldn't be too hard for the devs to implement a Job/class system for kerbals.

[CaptRobau]

Crew roles sound like a good way to handle it. It gives a reason for you not to treat your Kerbals as replacable crash-test dummies and would not just make multiple crew vehicles useful on their, it would also add an element of choosing which Kerbal to use for which action. Have a suicide mission? Choose the scientist Kerbal and leave your experienced Pilot out of harms way. I would argue that hard consequences such as being unable to move the ship without a Pilot is too drastic. Perhaps have roles simply influence how efficient an action can be done. A Scientist would return the most science when doing an EVA Report, but Pilots would still be able to them just not as well as Scientist. Conversely, a Scientist piloting a spacecraft would just not be able to handle it as responsively as a Pilot would. So you could still fly the craft, but it'd react a bit like when you don't have enough torque on a spacecraft, i.e. slugglish. It'd be less easy to fly it, but with a bit of skill and luck you would be able to get it home. I'd streamline this system as much as possible. A Kerbal wouldn't have to be in a certain seat in the pod to be the Pilot. The best Pilot in the pod is the one that counts. Similarly, doing a Crew Report is done by the top Scientist.

[Frank_G]

We are totally in line here. I´d be happy to see such a system in a future version of KSP. And yes, the mission should not fail by losing a kerbal due to lack of the remaining crews skill.

[Atoning Unifex]

I did not mean skills, i mean jobs... 1 kerbal can repair stuff, 1 kerbal can fly the ship and 3 kerbals are scientists... So you need at least 3 of them... one who has the skill to pilot that insane thingie, one that keeps it running and at least one that can do SCIENCE... losing the mechanic and 2 landing legs would be catastrophic, losing the scientists would result in... well no science and losing the pilot... go get a rescue mission up. And as mentioned above... when the tasks you assign your kerbals to need time to be executed, having more crew will of course speed up the mission.

I think the basis of our ideas is similar, however I object to the idea of 'speed[ing] up the mission'. To do things quicker in KSP I just time warp. It's a common issue that has come up in many conversations about research over time etc. My thoughts were to require certain kerbal skills/jobs to increase output per mission. So having no science kerbal would provide a reduced amount of science for certain science tasks for that mission, meaning you would need to repeat it (similar to transmission loss but hopefully more understandable). That way you can't simply time warp your way out of it. Having along more & varied crew would provide a greater cost/benefit ratio (if/when those concepts really exist)

[Skyrunner27]

I would like to flesh it out how I see the ranks and such. First the addition of other types of crew reports. Flight Report, Health Report, Situation Report(Replaces the current Crew Report), Psychological Report, and Construct Report. I would also add the following crew members

Test Pilot- Your first crew members hired. They have the technical know how to test any spacecraft no matter how ridiculous. They gain the Flight Report ability allowing them to tell MCC how the craft is handling depending on the situation. They are more expensive then pilots

Pilots-Cheaper crew members for already flown areas and vehicles. They can fly new vehicles off the chopping block but they will have their skilled decreased slightly. They also have the ability to fly spacecraft but lose the ability for flight reports

Generic Scientist-This is your all around main scientist. Capable of taking all reports except the construct and flight reports. Can barely fly a vehicle. cheapest scientist.

Geologist-Boost given on science from their Sample Reports and Seismic activity. Can Barely fly

Meteorologist-Boost given to Barometer and Atmospheric readings. Flys better then most scientists

Biologist-Health reports given a slight boost. Goo Report given a large boost. Fly better then most scientists.

Doctor-Health reports get a major boost. Goo Report given a small boost. Fly worse then most scientists. Ensures rations in a crisis

Psychologist-Psychological report given a boost. Keeps the crew calm in a bad situation. Ensures rations in a crisis. Flys the worst of all crew members

Astronomer-All space based reports boosted. Only flys good out of atmosphere.

Engineer-Construct report allowed in this unit. Flys better then all scientists

Crash Test Dummy-Cheap non-living crew member that can give a small amount of all reports

[Specialist290]

I think the basis of our ideas is similar, however I object to the idea of 'speed[ing] up the mission'. To do things quicker in KSP I just time warp. It's a common issue that has come up in many conversations about research over time etc. My thoughts were to require certain kerbal skills/jobs to increase output per mission. So having no science kerbal would provide a reduced amount of science for certain science tasks for that mission, meaning you would need to repeat it (similar to transmission loss but hopefully more understandable). That way you can't simply time warp your way out of it. Having along more & varied crew would provide a greater cost/benefit ratio (if/when those concepts really exist)

I can see how using multiple kerbals to speed up a process might be handy for time-intensive experiments (if they ever get implemented), where you might need some kind of speed boost to properly finish certain contracts on time and / or receive a bonus for finishing ahead of schedule. That might make such a feature rather useful.

Of course, what I'd really like to see (partially tying in with a suggestion I made earlier) is an extra tier of experiments that takes data you've already gathered and refines it. Requiring multiple kerbals to synthesize multiple reports into new results on a 1:1 basis with the final value of the "synthesized" report dependent on the number of reports that go into it might serve to encourage multi-crewed missions rather effectively.

[Frank_G]

To do things quicker in KSP I just time warp. It's a common issue that has come up in many conversations about research over time etc. My thoughts were to require certain kerbal skills/jobs to increase output per mission.

Well, in this case, you dont do anything quicker... only the wait time of the player is shorter. This is not what is intended here. I am talking of efficient use of mission time... keep your experiment timeline short, so one orbit will do, so you wont miss that perfect return window f.e.... I guess this will be a great factor, when career mode will implement time critical missions. Regardless of that... i find it much more satisfying, doing missions elegantly and efficient. Its just that small extra reward an open game like this will have to offer.

[Dunbaratu]

I think all you'd need to make multi-crew missions give better science is more than one kind of "crew report" and "eva report" per biome, depending on what type of crew member took the report. So you send a kerbal tagged with the "geologist" skill to Duna and take an EVA report from the surface and you'll get science points from a different "mineable" science pool than if you have a "chemist" do so. Thus sending a 3-person crew lets you take 3 different reports in the same biome if you sent three different types of kerbal.

This has the advantage of dovetailing well with other stuff the SQUAD has said they plan to do later, like having different kerbals with different skills, and it seems like it would be easier to implement on top of the current code already there. You just make a few more mineable science pools per biome and tag them with the type of skill required to get them.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Steven Mading

[Comrade Jenkens]

I also think that this could be extended to probe cores. What is to stop you using the flat octo every time rather than the larger ones?

[William Freeman]

Having more than one Kerbal already provides a purpose. You can take more than one EVA report of the same location.

And that whole death thing, that too.

[Nuke]

i like the idea of kerbal classes and class based skills. you would have pilots, mission specialists, scientists, etc. a pilot is needed to fly the ship, but is horrible at science. your scientist gets more useful data than a pilot, etc. each would have their own set of skills. a kerbal can be leveled up based on his experience and use that exp to get skills. by having a larger crew you have a larger overall skill set at your disposal. it also makes you want to keep your kerbals alive. so it comes back to rpg elements.

[Atoning Unifex]

I think all you'd need to make multi-crew missions give better science is more than one kind of "crew report" and "eva report" per biome, depending on what type of crew member took the report. So you send a kerbal tagged with the "geologist" skill to Duna and take an EVA report from the surface and you'll get science points from a different "mineable" science pool than if you have a "chemist" do so. Thus sending a 3-person crew lets you take 3 different reports in the same biome if you sent three different types of kerbal.

This has the advantage of dovetailing well with other stuff the SQUAD has said they plan to do later, like having different kerbals with different skills, and it seems like it would be easier to implement on top of the current code already there. You just make a few more mineable science pools per biome and tag them with the type of skill required to get them.

I like this idea! simple yet seems to satisfy the needs for multiple crew.

[Chadster]

See, I really like the idea of multiple crew with various skills, especially in my vision of sending them up to a space station, having them do extended-period missions that might require different types of scientists, a la the mid-1980s computer game "Project Space Station", where you had to have a pilot (or flight engineer) aboard the shuttle to launch, but you could make the rest of the crew other scientists you wanted to ferry to the station so you could conduct various experiments, and having the right mix of skills was imperative if you wanted your experiments to progress and produce returns.

This is my biggest hope for utilization of multiple crew.

[Jouni]

Currently we have three roles for crew members in the game: pilot, technician, and scientist. A pilot flies the ship, but becomes redundant when you add a probe core. A technician can repack parachutes and repair landing legs during EVA. A scientist works in the lab. The simplest way to make larger crews useful without new game mechanics would be to allow one kerbal to do only one of the jobs.

[Capt Snuggler]

Crash Test Dummy-Cheap non-living crew member that can give a small amount of all reports

this is a great idea! would need to figure out a solid way of implementing it but would make for a fun/hilarious way of initially testing a craft.

[AlexinTokyo]

I like the idea of specialisations for Kerbals. My only thought about implementing Skyrunner's suggestion would be how you simulate a Kerbal's flying skill, given that (at the moment anyway) all flying is done by the player.

Some other thoughts for making multi-crewed missions more attractive:

Experiments requiring more than one Kerbal to complete (think: I'm manipulating this tricky bit of apparatus, could you make sure that the laser cutter doesn't move)

Experiments that require a fixed number of Kerbaldays to complete, so you could choose to it slowly with one or quickly with many, maybe within hard limits.

Experiments that require a certain speciality (or combination of specialities) to complete (Don't send a metallurgist to analyse an atmosphere sample)

Contractual obligations - your contract partner requires you to send 2 of their researchers to Duna and return them, but they can't fly a rocket (they're researchers) [a bit arbitrary, maybe, but certainly realistic]

[Capt Snuggler]

I like the idea of specialisations for Kerbals. My only thought about implementing Skyrunner's suggestion would be how you simulate a Kerbal's flying skill, given that (at the moment anyway) all flying is done by the player.

I think a G-LOC threshold would be the best way to simulate this. the player still flys but the kerbal can only maintain consciousness below a certain G-load. (this would also give more purpose to the G-meter)