Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[FleetAdmiralJ]

It's functionally equivalent, if not better.

Yes, but "Jeb leveled up so your RCS container suddenly holds 50 more units" is silly. However, Jeb leveled up and is now more experienced at piloting and wastes less RCS is not. Perhaps it is the same functionally. Which is why I say it depends how they implement it. If they implement it in a "your kerbal now can pilot better" sense, I have no problem with it because it's something that, to me anyway, is entirely sensible.

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?

Because it is not you who is actually firing the thrusters, you are telling the Kerbal to fire the thrusters. They may not be so good at it.

[Xavven]

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.

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)

Sure, technically he didn't say "more fuel," but if you "increase fuel efficiency" it has the same end result on the gameplay. I can go farther, or turn more, etc. Let's focus on the point of the argument instead of nitpicking semantics.

[hoojiwana]

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)

It was described as influencing vessel performance directly through thrust, heat, and fuel efficiency (ISP).

The Kerbal experience traits boost the ship/part they’re on

Doesn't say it boosts how well the Kerbal can fly, it's very clear about it changing the parts themselves.

[tater]

I should add that WRT skills, what we are very specifically talking about is no longer speculation.

Mike (Mu): Well, the experience system has come on in leaps and bounds. The back end is finished and has some nice little features which modders should enjoy. The Kerbal experience traits boost the ship/part they’re on and can have some very funky effects. Currently these include boosting thrust, reducing heat generation, increasing fuel efficiency and boosting science output. Obviously, the performance boosting effects have to be quite subtle to not make things too easy but will still provide a solid boost should you care for your Kerbals.

Boosting thrust? Magic.

Reducing heat generation? Not even sure what that means. Engines overheat now, so that means you can run an engine a few % higher without it overheating… Also magic.

Increasing fuel efficiency? Magic.

Boosting science? That's fine, science is abstracted. It would be like the others if he could take one soil sample, and get the biome he is in, plus another skill*XXkm away.

The only way for skill to not be magic would be AI pilots, and the skill level affects THEIR PILOTING. Not thrust, not efficiency, but when they maneuver, how accurately they apply thrust, where the ship is pointed, etc.

[Draft]

Yes, but "Jeb leveled up so your RCS container suddenly holds 50 more units" is silly. However, Jeb leveled up and is now more experienced at piloting and wastes less RCS is not. Perhaps it is the same functionally. Which is why I say it depends how they implement it. If they implement it in a "your kerbal now can pilot better" sense, I have no problem with it because it's something that, to me anyway, is entirely sensible.

Because it is not you who is actually firing the thrusters, you are telling the Kerbal to fire the thrusters. They may not be so good at it.

So you're arguing that unresponsive controls is good game design for KSP. I disagree completely.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Sure, technically he didn't say "more fuel," but if you "increase fuel efficiency" it has the same end result on the gameplay. I can go farther, or turn more, etc. Let's focus on the point of the argument instead of nitpicking semantics.

But semantics is actually important.

People are arguing against this because it "violates physics" or whatever. If having jeb in the ship literally made the actual physical engine more efficient, they would be right. But if having Jeb in the capsule now means he implements your piloting directions more efficiently, then suddenly the safe effect has a plausible explanation that, in fact, does not break physics.

[Twreed87]

Yes, but "Jeb leveled up so your RCS container suddenly holds 50 more units" is silly. However, Jeb leveled up and is now more experienced at piloting and wastes less RCS is not. Perhaps it is the same functionally. Which is why I say it depends how they implement it. If they implement it in a "your kerbal now can pilot better" sense, I have no problem with it because it's something that, to me anyway, is entirely sensible.

But here's the thing, the amount of RCS that is used is entirely dependent on the player. Jeb does exactly what you tell him to do. He thrusts exactly as long as you tell him to thrust at the exact same time. When you play the game, you ARE Jeb, and your keyboard is the flight controller. If Jeb is doing something differently than what I tell him, that needs to be shown in the game. I need to see that Jeb didn't accidentally rotate when he meant to translate like I did, or that he didn't overshoot the rendezvous event though I left the throttle up too long.

Besides, what if you pilot it perfectly? What if you use MechJeb. If the rendezvous went perfectly, how could Jeb have made it better?

[r4pt0r]

But here's the thing, the amount of RCS that is used is entirely dependent on the player. Jeb does exactly what you tell him to do. He thrusts exactly as long as you tell him to thrust at the exact same time. When you play the game, you ARE Jeb, and your keyboard is the flight controller. If Jeb is doing something differently than what I tell him, that needs to be shown in the game. I need to see that Jeb didn't accidentally rotate when he meant to translate like I did, or that he didn't overshoot the rendezvous event though I left the throttle up too long.

Kerbals not listening to command inputs from the player amounts to random failures, lets be honest.

[lincourtl]

...prolonged speculation is half of Squad's marketing campaign.

So true, so true.

[bigbadben]

Yes, but "Jeb leveled up so your RCS container suddenly holds 50 more units" is silly. However, Jeb leveled up and is now more experienced at piloting and wastes less RCS is not. Perhaps it is the same functionally. Which is why I say it depends how they implement it. If they implement it in a "your kerbal now can pilot better" sense, I have no problem with it because it's something that, to me anyway, is entirely sensible.

Because it is not you who is actually firing the thrusters, you are telling the Kerbal to fire the thrusters. They may not be so good at it.

No, I am the one piloting the craft. I am the one deciding how much thrust to use, I am the one measuring delta-v to see if I can make it, I am the one planning maneuver nodes, I am the one turning the craft during the burns...

I am the one, with sweat on my brow, tapping my keyboard with careful precision as I guide my ship in for a Mun landing.

When you start adding arbitrary stats to the parts, based on Kerbals driving them, suddenly -they- are the one piloting it, using their bonuses, and not my careful piloting.

It takes me out of the picture, and puts Kerbals in charge. Personally, I prefer to fly the craft, not them.

[micha]

All I can say is that if implemented as "Kerbal X gives Y*XP Level boost to physical system Z" that Squad also implements a toggle option to make it optional.

Absolutely love the idea of Kerbals keeping track of their history and gaining extra reputation, ribbons, flair, whatever, but absolutely not ok with the idea of HAVING MOAR MAGIK BOOST.

I'm onboard with the (EDIT: some community-member's, not official Squad) proposal of specialists being required - must have a Pilot Kerbal of at least X experience to fly a ship with certain parts, a Mechanic Kerbal of at least X experience in order to perform an EVA repair, a Scientist Kerbal to use certain experiments (or perhaps slightly boost science returned), etc. Initially the experience should only come from missions, but as soon as you have a Kerbal of X experience in a field he should be able to train up others to a similar level. Otherwise every Kerbal has to grind through the same missions.

Anyway, I'll watch and see what the end result is, but PLEASE add an opt-out setting!

Edited October 22, 2014 by micha
Clarify that specialists idea is not proposed by Squad

[Xavven]

But semantics is actually important.

People are arguing against this because it "violates physics" or whatever. If having jeb in the ship literally made the actual physical engine more efficient, they would be right. But if having Jeb in the capsule now means he implements your piloting directions more efficiently, then suddenly the safe effect has a plausible explanation that, in fact, does not break physics.

Well, that concept breaks down in a lot of scenarios. Tell me piloting skill is a factor in the first 60 seconds off the launchpad when I'm literally going straight up with no control inputs. Now suddenly I get more thrust just because Jeb is a "better pilot"? There are some things that Kerbals should rightly be able to affect, and others they shouldn't.

[Twreed87]

Kerbals not listening to command inputs from the player amounts to random failures, lets be honest.

Exactly, which makes this exp idea random successes, which is just as bad.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

When you start adding arbitrary stats to the parts, based on Kerbals driving them, suddenly -they- are the one piloting it, using their bonuses, and not my careful piloting.

It takes me out of the picture, and puts Kerbals in charge. Personally, I prefer to fly the craft, not them.

Excellent. I have no problem with that view. You don't like the idea of having experience affect what you tell a kerbal to do. Perfectly valid point.

Though my impression experience levels are supposed to make the amount of improvement predictable so that the player can still have a somewhat reasonable expectation of what to expect, so it wouldn't really be random. It would just be that Jeb consistency flys the ship 3% better than Bob or something, so you have to take that into account if you fly Bob instead of Jeb.

What I find silly here is the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have kerbals to perform more or less efficiently without it violating physics.

[tater]

Even Mercury was controlled by a computer. The astronauts only really shine when there is a problem, and Squad has specifically said they don't like random problems. Instead we get random buffs?

[Laie]

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.

I tell my Kerbal "point ship towards prograde, fire main thruster for ten seconds". Now tell me how the Kerbal is supposed to get more thrust or better fuel efficiency by doing something. The best thing I can think of would be experienced Kerbals doing exactly as they're told, while lesser minds might miss prograde by five degrees and fire the thrusters for twelve seconds. I'd surely love that.

[hoojiwana]

What I find silly here is the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have kerbals to perform more or less efficiently without it violating physics.

No one is saying that. They are saying that parts themselves acting better because you have a particular Kerbal on board is violating common sense, which is exactly how Mu described it.

[tater]

Excellent. I have no problem with that view. You don't like the idea of having experience affect what you tell a kerbal to do. Perfectly valid point.

What I find silly here is the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have kerbals to perform more or less efficiently without it violating physics.

It is violating physics if the player is flying. Because is is stated that it alters the parts/ship capabilities.

If the kerbals are flying, it's just fine as long as it doesn't do anything that Mu actually said, and instead alters their piloting ability. Burn timing, duration, direction. Think MechJeb, but with error bars around every maneuver scaled to skill. Really dumb astronaut is still… an astronaut, so maybe the worst guy might be off by a couple degrees. The best is near perfect all the time.

What is proposed is magic, period.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

It is violating physics if the player is flying. Because is is stated that it alters the parts/ship capabilities.

If the kerbals are flying, it's just fine as long as it doesn't do anything that Mu actually said, and instead alters their piloting ability. Burn timing, duration, direction. Think MechJeb, but with error bars around every maneuver scaled to skill. Really dumb astronaut is still… an astronaut, so maybe the worst guy might be off by a couple degrees. The best is near perfect all the time.

What is proposed is magic, period.

Next time I waste fuel driving somewhere, I'll make sure to remember to blame physios rather than my bad driving.

[hoojiwana]

Next time I waste fuel driving somewhere, I'll make sure to remember to blame physios rather than my bad driving.

You're still misunderstanding why people are having an issue with this. Let's say you drive your car to work, every day, and to simplify let's say every single time you drive, you drive exactly the same way. Now one day, you level up! Congratulations your engine now outputs 10 more horsepower and gets 5 more miles to the gallon, even though the way you drive hasn't changed at all.

[GusTurbo]

Editor changes sound great. The editor(s) have been really broken for a while, so this is heartening.

Kerbal Experience as described does not sound fun or logical.

All in all, great notes, really appreciate the transparency, as always.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

You're still misunderstanding why people are having an issue with this. Let's say you drive your car to work, every day, and to simplify let's say every single time you drive, you drive exactly the same way. Now one day, you level up! Congratulations your engine now outputs 10 more horsepower and gets 5 more miles to the gallon, even though the way you drive hasn't changed at all.

I completely get why people have a problem. In game code it may be implemented that way but (presuming they're smart in how they present in game), it will, in fact, be kerbals learning how to drive better, not the engine getting more horsepower. Is the effect between the engine increasing horsepower and the kerbal flying better effectively the same? Sure, which is why, if one is thinking about how to code it, you may very well do it from the parts end. But if the attribute is "Jeb, Level 3 Pilot. +5% fuel efficiency" does that mean the engine is magically more efficient or he is a better driver?

I get the thing about people saying that they put in the input and the kerbal does it. I guess that just depends on how you see the game.

If you see the game as you literally driving the ship and the kerbal is just...there. Then sure, kerbal attributes changing what happens doesn't make sense because the kerbal is literally not doing anything in the first place to change.

But if you view it as you inputting controls, and the Kerbal is executing those controls, then suddenly kerbals having attributes that affect things like efficiency suddenly become more plausible.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[tater]

Next time I waste fuel driving somewhere, I'll make sure to remember to blame physios rather than my bad driving.

The suggested mechanism doesn't model bad driving. It models having a smaller gas tank.

[Twreed87]

What I find silly here is the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have kerbals to perform more or less efficiently without it violating physics.

Here's why it violates physics:

Imagine you're on a return trip from the Mun, and you realize you aren't quite sure you have enough fuel to get home. You do your calculations, and you realize the best you can possibly do is lower your Kerbin periapsis to 71km. That's it, you're stuck. There simply isn't enough fuel in your tank, and your engines aren't efficient enough to change your velocity in a way that will allow you to intersect Kerbin's atmosphere. Now, tell me, how would a better pilot change that?

Or better yet, imagine you're in a stable, circular orbit around Kerbin, and you want to escape with as much velocity as possible. That's it. Point prograde, fire engines at max, reach the highest speed you can. Well, the rocket equation is pretty fixed. Your max speed is a direct result of the amount of fuel you have, the weight of your craft, and the ISP of your engines. There's no room for a pilot to change anything. Physics violated.

[tater]

A better example. An "80%" pilot will always use more fuel than a 100% pilot. Always, every maneuver. He'll need to get every m/s for a critical, life-saving burn… but he will ALWAYS choke.