Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[Red Iron Crown]

11

I can imagine greatly enjoying an "11" feature. Just not tied to which kerbal is in the pod. All ships must be able to go to 11. For science.

[r4pt0r]

Just caught up again, probably wont do that again. Glad to see something came from our friendly little discussion.

[HafCoJoe]

I can imagine greatly enjoying an "11" feature. Just not tied to which kerbal is in the pod. All ships must be able to go to 11. For science.

Yeah that could be a good mod even.

[TouhouTorpedo]

The only parts I agree on being modified by Kerbal experience are science based items, and SAS STABILITY (not the torque)

if an experienced kerbal can better tune the SAS so it actually does what its supposed to do and fights the rotation of the vessel so I don't have to do it EVEN THOUGH SAS IS ON, then that'd be lovely.

Infact forget the experience part I mentioned there and just plain sort out the SAS tuning so it'll work in any gamemode. I still prefer the Original ASAS at times, even though it did shake some vessels appart with how vicious it was. Sure beats the limp thing we have now that isn't even slightly effective in anything but a vacuum with the throttle off.

[Franklin]

The SAS control thing that keeps coming up is an even worse example of what the Kerbals could have influence over because unlike engine throttle the SAS is designed to be automated. Even the player has no input into that device, which means vicariously neither do the Kerbals.

....ty SAS control should be fixed by a patch from Squad, not flipped into a feature where a Kerbal controls it by hand. It's a device controlled by a program even within the game's logic.

[StrandedonEarth]

I can imagine greatly enjoying an "11" feature. Just not tied to which kerbal is in the pod. All ships must be able to go to 11. For science.

Not necessarily. After several trips to the Mun, Jeb figured out (or maybe one of his engineer buddies in the VAB told him) that he could open the control panel and cross the red and blue wires to override the throttle limiter, and can crank the thrust to 150% max rated thrust. However, the ISP plummeted and the engine exploded shortly thereafter. Use at your own risk.

Sort of like the WEP systems in WWII fighter aircraft....

[Draemora]

Apparently it was so much so that a near riot broke out in the forums and reddit causing squad to gut the feature.

Lazy and bad design is not revolutionary.

[Laie]

Jeb figured out (or maybe one of his engineer buddies in the VAB told him) that he could open the control panel and cross the red and blue wires

And he will undo that whenever he leaves the pod or swaps seats with his buddy?

[Franklin]

Sort of like the WEP systems in WWII fighter aircraft....

See I'd be fine with a WEP mode on engines assuming it was outlined in the part metrics and made for higher risk of damage to the engine, but KSP doesn't have part failure right now, so it'd just be a magic buff, which is silly.

[Alguien]

And that's kinda where the crux of the argument is here. People who are okay with the idea of the Kerbals being the ones piloting don't really seem to mind the fact that they get better at steering and overall become more efficient pilots. People who see themselves as the pilot don't like the idea of getting extra bonuses when they are already performing at what they consider to be peak capacity.

Is not that black and white. Some people are fine with better steering but not engines being more efficient because the kerbal has a medal for example.

I will be honest, the core of the idea is decent, how your guys were planning in implement it wasn't

Personally, instead of taking everything to Kerbonauts, why not dividing it between three kerbal groups?

The K-Suits, who get experience as you finish contracts and get contract related (extra pay, more time to complete, bigger margen of error,etc) bonus

The Engineers, who get experience for assembling and recovering the rocket, and obviously get the bonus to part efficiency (as opposed to your idea of Jeb hitting the pedal harder makes the rocket going magically faster)

And the Kerbonauts themselves, who get bonus to other stuff like extra science per sample, less electricity cost/extra bonus for sending data, able to repair more types of parts (i can partially undertand addint steering here)

And to expand it even more, contracts where companies ask you for your top K-Suit, engis or Kerbonauts for rewards, do you accept the B9 Aerospace request of your Engi team A? Or you decline in favor of that extra puff they give for your Mun mission?

This solves the whole logic problem and expands that the KSP is more than just Jeb, Bob and Bill

Edit: This is also a pretty good example of the divide between the playerbase between seeing the game as a simulator or a game.

Arcade, the word is arcade, not "game", simulators are still games.

[StrandedonEarth]

And he will undo that whenever he leaves the pod or swaps seats with his buddy?

Sure, because he's a conscientious sort and wouldn't want Bill to blow the engine.

I have no problem with finding more thrust. I just cant figure out how Jeb's going to get more ISP out of an engine, unless he goes EVA and welds on a nozzle extension. But that would add more mass....

Edit:

See I'd be fine with a WEP mode on engines assuming it was outlined in the part metrics and made for higher risk of damage to the engine, but KSP doesn't have part failure right now, so it'd just be a magic buff, which is silly.

WEP mode would lead to rapid overheating, and KSP engines already explode when overheated (stick a bunch of SRB's close together to find out!)

Edited October 23, 2014 by StrandedonEarth

[Engineer of Stuff]

I like the idea, as long it is able to be turned off (for the real simulator experience).

[Pecan]

(In reply to my "The trouble with FleetAdmiral's analysis ...")

So because NASA has probes, then people who flew on the shuttle or live in the ISS don't actually gain experience from doing so because automation? This whole line of argument that one could have stuck Joe Smith into Apollo 11 and everything would have turned out OK because who the astronaut is doesn't really matter is driving me nuts.

You may have had enough of this discussion by now but that's exactly the opposite of what I was saying.

I don't think anyone is saying who the crew are is unimportant, but that clever pilots don't make engines better - they FLY better.

Someone who flies a spacecraft gains experience in flying a spacecraft. If YOU are flying the spacecraft, they don't gain by it.

Someone who lives in the ISS for 6 months probably learns less about orbital manoeuvres and piloting in that time than they would playing KSP!

Someone who lives in the ISS for 6 months probably learns a lot more about weightlessness and whatever their job is than we ever will ;-0

Someone who flies a spacecraft for 6 months ought to be better at it than we are. NOT if they are just sitting in it watching the universe drift past.

The only way you can simulate someone flying a spacecraft, since all the Kerbals are computer artefacts, is a 'mechjeb' approach in which YOU stop flying it and let them do it.

As I said in my original post and many other people have said throughout this thread - experience counts, but it has to count for something internally consistent or it breaks the story. Yes, charismatic astronauts that earn more reputation. Yes, brilliant scientists that earn more science. Yes, brilliant navigators/pilots who can pull-off an against-the-odds, pinpoint rendezvous or lightning reaction landing when YOU couldn't. No, frankly, 'magic' engineers who somehow make a ship work '5%' better just because they're sitting in the cockpit. They have to DO something to make their experience count.

For pilots and navigators plotting and executing manoeuvre nodes are the only sensible things to DO. You might not like the MechJeb in that but then I don't like the science in the tech-tree (or possibly the other way around). It makes sense though. It is internally consistent, as every story must be, it doesn't require any new game mechanics to implement and it provides an optional extra feature for those that want it (including me).

Where in this is "who the astronaut is doesn't really matter" come in? In your scheme of things YOU are the only astronaut and Kerbals are merely puppets.

[SpacedCowboy]

Well, it seems pretty obvious that most don't like the Kerb X = rocket power thing. Hoping the devs see this and realize they're going down the wrong road!

[r4pt0r]

well, it seems pretty obvious that most don't like the kerb x = rocket power thing. Hoping the devs see this and realize they're going down the wrong road!

re read the op good sir

[AbhChallenger]

Well, it seems pretty obvious that most don't like the Kerb X = rocket power thing. Hoping the devs see this and realize they're going down the wrong road!

No there are a few that can't accept the fact that Kerbal Space Program is not their new Orbiter or that Squad has not banned MechJeb. Or the few that think because a few 12 year olds learned space physics. Keeping the game hardcore will mean many many more will leave minecraft for KSP.

Squad is on the right path. It is just a bit simplistic. But many think any idea of a bonus is Terribad.

[Shuttle]

Sorry if repost

https://twitter.com/Maxmaps/status/524974197551149056

[LethalDose]

Wow. Of all the times for Squad to actually start listening to the community they chose *this*.

Good work people. (That's sarcasm for anyone too dense to figure it out)

[m4v]

Wow. Of all the times for Squad to actually start listening to the community they chose *this*.

yep, that's the kind of aptitude that gets people to listen to you.

[Unabled]

After pouring over all 55 pages of this thread...I like these ideas the best:

...I was thinking that it might be nice to give the Kerbals more "privileges" as the game progresses, depending on their success in previous missions... for example:

First level: Kerbals are allowed to sit in the cockpit, but nothing more... for a launch or two.

Second Level: Kerbals can do "tethered" EVAs, in which they can float about in space, but never more than 25 meters from the spacecraft. (This is mostly so that they can gather planetary science data.) This phase lasts another launch or two.

Third Level: Kerbals can do free EVAs, and walk upon planets' and moons' surfaces. They should also be able to get more Science than their earlier counterparts.

Fourth Level: In addition to everything else, Kerbals can relocate parts on a spacecraft via EVA, and get even more science!

You would go through levels faster by doing more ambitious missions: A Kerbal could even be promoted midflight for a particularly daring mission...

...I generally care about my Kerbals, so it would be gratifying to see their accomplishments acknowledged in some way, whether it be badges, medals, or even just a service record that says what they've done. Not everything added to the game has to add gameplay. Small touches that add to the game world can really add a lot to the experience.

So some of the options that I have seen:

• Add an experience system that gives Kerbals something like character levels: Tiers of experience that lead to more EVA activities from just tethered EVA to full on RCS pack EVA.
  

-I really like this idea. I remember reading about the ability to train Kerbonauts, and I think this would tie in well with this type of system. If you have the money/facilities/rep whatever it would cost to put a Kerbonaut through a type of training, have that result in increased EVA capabilities.

-Could possibly have increased EVA movement based on a Kerbals 'experience' and familiarity with moving in EVA.

• Add a system that just logs your Kerbonauts accomplishments: awards medals, increases reputation based off popularity, etc.
  

-If they cannot come up with a good way of implementing some type of experience 'perks' this is what it should amount to. Just have the game keep track of what the Kerbals do.

• Include "active" perks: have a 'give her all shes got!' option to over-thrust engines risking overheating or other damage to the engine/ship. Yes this would require more work implementing.
  

-I can't think of many more 'active' perks, but I like the sound of the concept. Some sort of trade off would be nice to have with some but not required.

• Have Kerbal Crew positions: Sort of like the lab requirement of 2 Kerbals, have a requirement of a Pilot, Commander, and Specialist/scientist on certain missions.
  

-I don't know if that limit should be a hard limit or not, and if you can still fly a mission without an experienced Pilot or Commander what penalties would that result in? Should it?

-I do like the sound of being able to train a Kerbal to handle one of these positions.

With all of these, I like the sound of having those Kerbals that have more experience give more reputation for their missions. This would just be a reflection of their popularity to the public. (How cool would it be to see Chris Hadfield in a high profile mission?). Of course if you lose those kerbals, it would mean a result in a big hit. On the flip side, probes would essentially be REP neutral because a robotic probe typically doesn't garner as much attention (unless you complete a higher profile mission with it like curiosity). Probes should ultimately result in less science/capabilities to give crewed missions more of an incentive.

I also like the sound of being able to train Kerbals. It seems like training your personnel would be a big part of handling a space program.

We could assign Kerbals Swimming pool simulation for EVA experience/Jet pack familiarity. Maybe assign Kerbals time in the G-Force simulator to increase their tolerances?

Of course doing anything like this would greatly expand the feature, but man does it sound cool.

[AbhChallenger]

yep, that's the kind of aptitude that gets people to listen to you.

The issue is Squad is "Listening" to the same crowd that howled over MechJeb. Listening to people who KNOW how to disable such features (Via a checkbox or mod) Instead of thinking about what might be fun for newer players to work towards.

Newsflash. The fun part may violate the laws of physics. The fun part may involve Kerbal magic stuff. The fun part may involve something other than 30 windows of porkchop plots, protractors, calculators, wind tunnel data, etc.

[Oksbad]

The issue is Squad is "Listening" to the same crowd that howled over MechJeb. Listening to people who KNOW how to disable such features (Via a checkbox or mod) Instead of thinking about what might be fun for newer players to work towards.

Newsflash. The fun part may violate the laws of physics. The fun part may involve Kerbal magic stuff. The fun part may involve something other than 30 windows of porkchop plots, protractors, calculators, wind tunnel data, etc.

What? Why on earth do you think the people who don't like magic delta V increasing Kerbals dislike Mechjeb? I think you are simply lumping anyone who disagrees with you in one massive united group.

Every time an unrealistic feature is opposed, people will trot out the same excuse that fun trumps realism. This is true, and a good implementation of this includes the shrinking of the solar system, which shortens launch times and permits easier rocket designs which really help new players (though I can think of many who would appreciate a "hard mode" with a scaled up solar system). However, as a rocket simulator, KSP's fun value is more dependent than most games on paying lip service to real physics. If "fun" and "new players" are truly king, why don't we have starting parts that provide unlimited or regenerating fuel? Or have engines with 1000X the ISP of an ion drive with the same thrust as a mainsail? It would certainly make things easier for new players, could be considered fun for casual players and could simply not be used or modded out by purists. Yet few would think that these parts should be added to the game (at least for career mode).

We understand that fun trumps realism. We simply find the "fun" provided by that change insufficient to compensate for the "fun" lost due unnecessary deviations from an accurate depiction of rocketry.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Oksbad

[DunaRocketeer]

This kind of thing can get very heated, with legitimate points on both sides, so all I'll say is thankyou Squad, I appreciate going back on this issue.

[AbhChallenger]

I am lumping everyone in the same group. Because it is the same thing. If it were a simple case of the idea being too simplistic (Which yes it is) You would not have so many in this very topic outright saying that anything that touches engines or parts = bad.

Let's say Squad has an idea for a Kerbal skill that can make maneuver nodes. A low skill will end up with a node to Duna that is over 2000 delta V and gets better but never as good as a handmade node. For newer players it would be a GREAT reason to build experience for Kerbals. However, people would howl saying that players should learn how to do it themselves. Why? Don't start with Realism because no astronaut in history had the call on the path a spacecraft took to the moon. Mars probes use burns constructed by computers years in advance.

[CaptainKipard]

I am lumping everyone in the same group. Because it is the same thing. If it were a simple case of the idea being too simplistic (Which yes it is) You would not have so many in this very topic outright saying that anything that touches engines or parts = bad.

Let's say Squad has an idea for a Kerbal skill that can make maneuver nodes. A low skill will end up with a node to Duna that is over 2000 delta V and gets better but never as good as a handmade node. For newer players it would be a GREAT reason to build experience for Kerbals. However, people would howl saying that players should learn how to do it themselves. Why? Don't start with Realism because no astronaut in history had the call on the path a spacecraft took to the moon. Mars probes use burns constructed by computers years in advance.

You should excuse yourself from the debate. You're mischaracterising people's arguments and arguing against strawmen.