Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[FleetAdmiralJ]

"There's no way that design is gonna make it to Duna. Your TWR is way too low and your dV is a mâ€â€"

[Level 20 Jeb Joins Party]

"Now we'll get to Duna."

[Franklin Uninstalls Game]

It's more like the ship in theory has enough dV to get to Duna, but since you put a crap driver in the ship, he can't steer and wasted so much fuel that you aren't going to make it now.

[Franklin]

You're the crap driver.

[Draft]

It's more like the ship in theory has enough dV to get to Duna, but since you put a crap driver in the ship, he can't steer and wasted so much fuel that you aren't going to make it now.

Which would be fine if I wasn't manually controlling said ship

[Whirligig Girl]

Not to mention that this gives no reason to use any other kerbals than the most experienced - "sorry Ferfel, you're not coming."

That's why my idea adds downsides, so that Kerbals with different experience have less downsides.

Maybe letting new Kerbals fly after a long time of the same Kerbals flying would add a reputation boost, even enough to counter my proposed reputation boost from Pilot-Kerbal return.

[Franklin]

Like if what hoojiwana said here is true, that Squad has long-planned to make it so Kerbals pilot themselves a la MechJeb, which is a comment that seems to run against the grain of what everyone else has said Squad envisions for the game, then perhaps a skill-based experience system makes sense.

But even then, their ability needs to impact the piloting of the rocket, not the physics itself. Make it so a Kerbal with less experience has a harder time staying within max velocity, make it so a Kerbal with less experience stages less quickly, make it so a Kerbal with less experience over-shoots nodes more often. Don't make it so the physics of a design bends around the bloody astronauts that man it.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Not to talk down to all the famous astronauts throughout history, but when a rocket is manned it's not like the ground staff worries the mission will be a failure because none of their crew is a high enough level. Buzz Aldrin or Johnny Nobody will man a successful mission.

I beg to differ. Scott Carpenter almost screwed himself by running out of RCS on (i think) Mercury 4. On Gemini 1, Gus Grissom was able to recover from a mission control error when they fired retro rockets at the wrong time by using the capsule's lift during re-entry to get most of the way back to their intended landing zone.

You're the crap driver.

So, that Level 2 player in Skyrim can't do crap because you're bad at pressing keyboard buttons, or because they haven't leveled up enough?

Which would be fine if I wasn't manually controlling said ship

Again, in what game where a player's experience can determine how good or bad you are at something aren't you controlling the player?

Don't make it so the physics of a design bends around the bloody astronauts that man it.

It is still blowing my mind that people think that kerbals who can't drive is somehow violating physics.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[KandoKris]

I 2 would like to join the chorus of players in saying a big fat NOO to EXP effecting efficiency etc of craft and instead want this;

How about instead of Kerbals outright boosting science (or ISP etc), maybe specialisations you can choose like

Scientist - Allows results processed in the lab by this Kerbal to return more science by transmission than normal.

Navigator- Ships piloted by this Kerbal will show an intercept line when a target is selected for rendezvous in the map screen.

EVA Specialist - Kerbal can repair OX and SP type solar panels whilst on EVA in addition to wheels and landing gear

Kerbals can have one (1) specialisation perhaps giving them the applicable spacesuit or perhaps a patch (done like the flag as an overlay)

-----

Plus maybe some fun 'perks' which they can have several of like

Will to live - This Kerbal will automatically bail out of a destroyed pod instead of being KIA when the part is destroyed

Badass - Like the current flag - this Kerbal doesn't flinch in the face of danger

[tater]

Not to talk down to all the famous astronauts throughout history, but when a rocket is manned it's not like the ground staff worries the mission will be a failure because none of their crew is a high enough level. Buzz Aldrin or Johnny Nobody will man a successful mission.

Pre-launch protocol (player checking the design), rigorous simulations (players reverting test flights) and constant training and prior research are what make a mission successful. The physics don't bend around the skillset of the astronauts because they're all charged with following very strict protocol and are being monitored and guided by a entire staff throughout the entire mission. One could argue the player is that overseeing body with the Kerbals.

So while I'm fine with Kerbal experience relating to skill-based tweaks, like how fast science is transmitted, and how much reputation you lose for killing a famous astronaut, I don't want to see wings get better lift because Jeb is a level 5 Magician.

This (highlighted).

Sorry, buffs are utter nonsense. More efficient? When the cockpit looks like RPM… the astronaut isn't flying anyway (in RL). Not unless there is a bad problem.

That's really the time when you really see astronaut skill making a difference, in a non-catastrophic problem. If Squad was for random events (not quite micrometeor hits, Apollo 13 like explosions, harmed reentry shields, etc), then skill might allow for repair, or improvised repairs. I'd be fine with that. Or how about this, I built a rocket early on, and for some reason put a clampotron someplace I knew was off-center. I knew it would behave less than well, but was too lazy to relaunch, and I didn't want to revert. I wanted the extra fuel for a Mun lander trapped in orbit around the Mun… so I turned on the RCS, and tried to hold it straight during the injection burn… I got the job done, but I was constantly fighting to keep it where it needed to be (felt like that scene in Apollo 13 if I upped the throttle above "barely running," lol). THAT is a situation where maybe a highly skilled pilot could have a broader range of holding control with RCS. Not increasing RCS thrust, just better at exactly balancing my CM problem. Works with no physics harmed. Those kind of errors are not all that common, though. Also, if the pilot was WORSE than I am skill wise, the ship should behave badly, even if I pilot perfectly. It is inconstant to do otherwise.

In that case, kerbal skill=worst needs to have everything behave at 100%, and then any skill is a buff.

Terrible.

[asheft]

I beg to differ. Scott Carpenter almost screwed himself by running out of RCS on (i think) Mercury 4. On Gemini 1, Gus Grissom was able to recover from a mission control error when they fired retro rockets at the wrong time by using the capsule's lift during re-entry to get most of the way back to their intended landing zone.

Which is something a good player in KSP would be able to do and a bad player wouldn't.

[Franklin]

I beg to differ. Scott Carpenter almost screwed himself by running out of RCS on (i think) Mercury 4. On Gemini 1, Gus Grissom was able to recover from a mission control error when they fired retro rockets at the wrong time by using the capsule's lift during re-entry to get most of the way back to their intended landing zone.

Sure, but that's piloting error, which isn't the proposed system. The proposed system would suggest because Buzz Kerbal is such an expert he starts with more RCS fuel, which isn't a skill-based impact.

So, that Level 2 player in Skyrim can't do crap because you're bad at pressing keyboard buttons, or because they haven't leveled up enough?

The D&D "because of magic" system is exactly what we're trying to avoid in a rocket simulation game.

[hoojiwana]

Like if what hoojiwana said here is true, that Squad has long-planned to make it so Kerbals pilot themselves a la MechJeb, which is a comment that seems to run against the grain of what everyone else has said Squad envisions for the game, then perhaps a skill-based experience system makes sense.

From an interview from February 2013;

Q: Any modules to help assist landing on planets?

A: We don’t like modules which do things for you. We want you to do it for yourself. Eventually we will let you train the kerbals to do things for you.

That's not the only place this was mentioned, but it is one example I can give concrete evidence of.

[Laie]

I beg to differ. Scott Carpenter almost screwed himself by running out of RCS on (i think) Mercury 4. On Gemini 1, Gus Grissom was able to recover from a mission control error when they fired retro rockets at the wrong time by using the capsule's lift during re-entry to get most of the way back to their intended landing zone.

And the Kerbals are doing similar things for me -- HOW?

Grissom was changing his trajectory by flying a particular profile. He wasn't changing the gravity constant.

[Twreed87]

I find it really hard to believe that they're actually considering something like "Jeb leveled up, all ships he's on will now gain a 5% ISP boost." That just makes no sense, and the reaction to it shows that it's not something people want.

Look at the new administration building, for example. Every strategy there has some sort of explanation for why it does what it does. You don't just magically transform money into science, there's an explanation for why that happens. The same needs to happen with Kerbal experience. There needs to be some at least semi-plausible explanation for why that Kerbal is able to achieve something. A better scientist can get more Science out of an experiment, okay that makes sense. Perhaps an electrician can optimize use of electricity and make that last longer, that's not too far out there. But how would a Kerbal increase the thrust of an engine from the cockpit? That just doesn't work for me.

Plus, as people have mentioned, you want crafts to work universally. A lot of ships are designed very deliberately, with precise calculations in thrust and ISP. Having those be thrown off by having a different pilot would just muck everything up.

[tater]

I'm fine, indeed I'd like to see the ability to set some missions, and let the kerbals do them themselves (larger contractions, base part deliveries, etc). At some point AI ships (pilots) would be great. It is a way to make a near future science fiction version of a spec-faring society of kerbals, which would be awesome, indeed.

In this case AI pilot skill would affect… piloting. Not tweaking the engines, etc. If an engine is tweaked by a space program, that's called a "design change." All future engines are so improved.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Sure, but that's piloting error, which isn't the proposed system. The proposed system would suggest because Buzz Kerbal is such an expert he starts with more RCS fuel, which isn't a skill-based impact.

That'd be a great argument is that was something that Mu actually said in his Dev Notes section, which of course he didn't

[FleetAdmiralJ]

And the Kerbals are doing similar things for me -- HOW?

Grissom was changing his trajectory by flying a particular profile. He wasn't changing the gravity constant.

Yes, you are LITERALLY in the capsule flying it, just like you are LITERALLY placing blocks in Minecraft or LITERALLY swinging swords in WoW. Of course not. The Kerbal is flying. You my be telling the kerbal what it SHOULD be doing, but this possibly puts in a system where a kerbal doesn't always do what you tell them to do exactly right.

[AmpsterMan]

So I think I see some of the problems this might cause. We must remember that part of this game gets inspiration from Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space. In that game failures would happen if the parts of your craft weren't good enough, or if your pilots didn't have the correct skills. The issue therefore is that in this game, the space craft engineers bring the spacecraft close to 100% reliability, is YOU the player. Likewise, the pilot executing the mission correctly is also YOU the player. As one plays the game; makes better rockets, learns to fly better, YOU are the one leveling up.

That said, a level up mechanic wouldn't be too amiss methinks. I personally wouldn't mind seeing little level up perks. For example, in XCom:Enemy Within, I could upgrade my characters as I played them even as I was leveling up myself in the sense of making better tactical and strategic decisions. We must also remember that Mu said the skill bonuses will be minor enough to not change the balance of the game too much. I can realisitically see uses less RCS fuel as just representing a pilot that is good with rendeszvous. Or, better control authority as a pilot that knows how to pilot the plane/ship better.

All this said, please LETS STOP WITH THE SPECULATIONS!!!

It's getting us no where! We can all post our concerns/ praises but when we talk about things that aren't there yet by inserting our own thoughts into the mix we will ALL end up disapointed.

[Franklin]

That'd be a great argument is that was something that Mu actually said in his Dev Notes section, which of course he didn't

Perhaps you read "boosting thrust, reducing heat generation, increasing fuel efficiency and boosting science output" differently than I.

[tater]

That'd be a great argument is that was something that Mu actually said in his Dev Notes section, which of course he didn't

That's exactly what he said. "Currently these include boosting thrust, reducing heat generation, increasing fuel efficiency and boosting science output." Boosting thrust means same control would use less fuel. That's the same as "more RCS fuel." It's magic, period.

How about a new part that contains a certain number of "spells of engine enchantment?"

[Twreed87]

This comparison to Skyrim that keeps popping up is sorta nonsense. Skyrim has you press a single button to attack, and the characters stats affect whether it hits or misses, and how much damage it does. That's not like KSP. In KSP, you control everything! If you use too much fuel on descent, it's because you kept the throttle up too high, or plotted a bad trajectory. These are things that you actually, phsyically did. It makes zero sense for the game to undo those mistakes because of the pilot you chose. In Skyrim, if your character misses, it isn't because you swung too early or aimed too high.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Perhaps you read "boosting thrust, reducing heat generation, increasing fuel efficiency and boosting science output" differently than I.

I certainly did not read it as "you suddenly have more RCS" unless you mean using RCS more efficiently is suddenly physically more RCS fuel.

Skyrim has you press a single button to attack, and the characters stats affect whether it hits or misses, and how much damage it does

Exactly! You tell your character - in KSP's case, your Kerbal - to do something. How well they do it is effected by their experience. I dont' see why the concept is difficult to grasp.

Now, it is a perfectly valid argument whether one WANTS Kerbal to be a game where "character stats affect whether" something happens as it should. But let's not try to argue that such a system is suddenly violating physics (depending on how it's implemented of course. But it certainly doesn't automatically mean that if you describe it in a way as a Kerbal doing things better or more efficiently)

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[Draft]

I certainly did not read it as "you suddenly have more RCS" unless you mean using RCS more efficiently is suddenly physically more RCS fuel.

It's functionally equivalent, if not better.

[Twreed87]

I certainly did not read it as "you suddenly have more RCS" unless you mean using RCS more efficiently is suddenly physically more RCS fuel.

How exactly would it use RCS more effieciently? If the player is inputting the same controls to release the same amount of RCS in the same direction, the end result should be the exact same. How would a good pilot get more thrust out of the same amount of mass ejected at the same velocity?

[tater]

I certainly did not read it as "you suddenly have more RCS" unless you mean using RCS more efficiently is suddenly physically more RCS fuel.

That is exactly what it is. Every thrust is 10% more efficient means there is 10% more fuel, functionally. Period. They are identical.

[Franklin]

All this said, please LETS STOP WITH THE SPECULATIONS!!!

It's getting us no where! We can all post our concerns/ praises but when we talk about things that aren't there yet by inserting our own thoughts into the mix we will ALL end up disapointed.

The problem is our concerns and praises stem from speculations because that's all Squad gives us until it's too late to change anything. While I agree these threads can get hostile (and as a developer that should be a red flag in itself, but that's none of my business), and if they devolve into name-calling then there's no progress, but prolonged speculation is half of Squad's marketing campaign.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean isn't concern and praise over speculation like half the job of a beta tester?