What is the point in kerbals having stats?

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, Hevak said:

Well a few mods actually use these stats quite well.  As others said they also influence the kerbal reactions inflight So maybe there were more plans for stock, or maybe it was made for modding. Either way my big question is why do they need to be removed? Really what negative impact do the have on the game? And some people have mad use of them. Or it's just they do nothing to you, so no one needs to have them? I mean if we are going to remove stats may as well get rid of kerbals altogether, they really do nothing. I mean whoopty do you can plant a flag, or remove data from a science part, nothing else to do on Eva,  just automate that and get rid of it all. 

Someone likes slippery slopes.

[Hevak]

4 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Someone likes slippery slopes.

No I don't, that is the point, so many things could be removed from this if we really wanted to sit here and pick at it. I mean the parts list alone could use a trimming, some are really not often used much. Someone somewhere probably uses these parts though.  But really as soon as we start pushing to remove stuff where does it stop? And what is the criteria to determine if something is useless enough?

Also we need to remember that this game is made for modding too. Maybe there were plans, or still are plans for stats. Either way they are utilized by mods and have a purpose. Stock is certainly another story, but it doesn't warrant removal of the stats, which have little impact on performance of the game itself. to keep alive a thread about kerbal stats for 2 years seems a bit much when it has zero impact on the performance of the game, and removing them is in no way going to improve the game at all. That's just my view. 

But if people want we can ride the slope all the way and really get into what is useless and should be removed, but it's very slippery indeed. 

 

Edited August 1, 2016 by Hevak

[StahnAileron]

Honestly, many of the gameplay elements of KSP are pretty superficial, poorly implemented at best. (Remember, I'm talking about actual game mechanics only.) You could rip out all the "game" parts from it and still have a pretty functional, basic orbital mechanics/rocketry simulation (which is what KSP is, first and foremost).

However, KSP does seem to be developed to have accessibility. Adding in the Kerbals probably attracted a larger audience due the absurdity that is behind them. (I don't care what you say, but contemporary society overall just loves stupid stuff. Just look at Youtube and Facbook.) They add a charm to KSP, especially to a younger audience. Personally, if there were no kerbals (or any characters), I'd probably still be interested in it for the simulator aspect.

Plenty of games technically have no characters in them. The only difference is that those are actual games intended to be games from the start. KSP is not. Any game mechanics added to it feel like an after-thought or just a token system. Most of the fun derived from KSP isn't actually from gameplay mechanics. It's the wonder of accomplishment, trial and error, discovering something new you didn't know before, learning more in a direct manner about an interesting topic... and of course, the EXPLOSIONS that come from failure. KSP is a GREAT tool, toy, sandbox, and simulator, but it's a liquid-poor game.

SQUAD is an advertising/marketing company as I understand it. Really, the Kerbals themselves are probably a masterpiece of marketing material. They SELL KSP. You could take them out of the program (I can't get myself to call KSP a game anymore until they actually make it a real game...) and still be left with the same core content, but you'd lose all the charm. You'd lose a powerful piece of publicity. You'd have KSP, the rocket physics sandbox, instead of KSP, "OH CRAP! NO! JEB~~~~!!!!"

Remember, humans get attached to things easiest when those things are humanized and/or personified in some way. Enter the Kerbals ^_~

[kiwi1960]

Oh the inhumanity of it all.

One day, the stats of all Kerbals will mean something, I mean, things were added at the start and much later they we finished, contracts for one thing... the Kerbal stats may not mean much now... but one day, they will... an example may be a Kerbal refusing to go EVA because he is a coward.... making crew selection much more important than it is now.

NASA also had its problems with this... Gus Grissom was accused of panicking and pulling the pin on his hatch too soon causing it to flood after he landed.... he was cleared but his life at NASA was never the same... he died later in a fire in a capsule test.

I suggest that when.... or if... this feature is ever activated in the game, it will make the entire game more fun to play, the unexpected element...

Sure as hell, you will take greater care when hiring Kerbals.

[StahnAileron]

33 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

[...] One day, the stats of all Kerbals will mean something, I mean, things were added at the start and much later they we finished, contracts for one thing... the Kerbal stats may not mean much now... but one day, they will... [...] when.... or if... this feature is ever activated in the game [...]

And therein lies the inherent problem with KSP. I have a stable alpha of a simulator with non-stable alpha game elements. I call it alpha due to the complete rewrite coming up. (Not many commercial programs get completely rewritten post launch without the rewrite being a new paid version.) I say game elements because calling them "game mechanics" is pushing it. They barely feed back into one another and aren't fleshed out well, if at all... (Hence my "non-stable" label.) The value-add from the currently implemented elements is minimal.

Those of us who've had our fun with KSP as a Simulator are now waiting for the "game" part of it to be delivered in full. I've had my money's worth with KSP as a sim in the 2.5 years I've had it. (Got it not too long after 0.90 came out.) But not as a game. It's the reason why so many people clamor for changes/improvements to the gameplay: because really, there is no true gameplay in the typical sense.

P.S. ...Now I'm starting to think I should get start a thread detailing what I would like to see in KSP as a game just so I could get that off my chest...

Edited August 1, 2016 by StahnAileron

[kiwi1960]

25 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

And therein lies the inherent problem with KSP. I have a stable alpha of a simulator with non-stable alpha game elements. I call it alpha due to the complete rewrite coming up. (Not many commercial programs get completely rewritten post launch without the rewrite being a new paid version.) I say game elements because calling them "game mechanics" is pushing it. They barely feed back into one another and aren't fleshed out well, if at all... (Hence my "non-stable" label.) The value-add from the currently implemented elements is minimal.

Those of us who've had our fun with KSP as a Simulator are now waiting for the "game" part of it to be delivered in full. I've had my money's worth with KSP as a sim in the 2.5 years I've had it. (Got it not too long after 0.90 came out.) But not as a game. It's the reason why so many people clamor for changes/improvements to the gameplay: because really, there is no true gameplay in the typical sense.

P.S. ...Now I'm starting to think I should get start a thread detailing what I would like to see in KSP as a game just so I could get that off my chest...

Actually.... more people want more features added.... some want bug fixes.... that means some features are put on hold while those are sorted out.

I really do pity Squad... they prove the old adage that you cannot please everyone all of the time... I give them credit for doing their best, and lets face it, Unity 5 screwed things up, sure, the move had to be made, but it caused problems with everything done to date as well as what would have happened by now.

If I was them.... I'd either yell ENOUGH ..... or stop listening to the forums and just do what they want... no doubt the kerbal stats were added for a reason and its not their fault it hasn't been done by now... I'm just amazed they got the conversion to unity 5 done without the whole game imploding....

[KSK]

10 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

Oh the inhumanity of it all.

One day, the stats of all Kerbals will mean something, I mean, things were added at the start and much later they we finished, contracts for one thing... the Kerbal stats may not mean much now... but one day, they will... an example may be a Kerbal refusing to go EVA because he is a coward.... making crew selection much more important than it is now.

NASA also had its problems with this... Gus Grissom was accused of panicking and pulling the pin on his hatch too soon causing it to flood after he landed.... he was cleared but his life at NASA was never the same... he died later in a fire in a capsule test.

I suggest that when.... or if... this feature is ever activated in the game, it will make the entire game more fun to play, the unexpected element...

Sure as hell, you will take greater care when hiring Kerbals.

If kerbal stats ever become important, I'm betting that the one thing they won't add is an unexpected element. Unless Squad have a change of heart, then that will get rejected for being not fun, in the same way that random part failures have been.

Personally I don't think kerbal stats will become important for the foreseeable future and maybe never in stock. The current kerbal experience system is rudimentary and really just an excuse to shoehorn in a bunch of in-game rewards that don't make a lot of sense. The system simply isn't big enough or detailed enough to cram stats into as well.

I'll never say never but I think a decent kerbal stats system would need a lot of work and a wholesale rethink of the current xp system. Which doesn't seem very likely to happen although I'll happily chow down on a big slice of humble pie if it does.

[kiwi1960]

1 hour ago, KSK said:

If kerbal stats ever become important, I'm betting that the one thing they won't add is an unexpected element. Unless Squad have a change of heart, then that will get rejected for being not fun, in the same way that random part failures have been.

Personally I don't think kerbal stats will become important for the foreseeable future and maybe never in stock. The current kerbal experience system is rudimentary and really just an excuse to shoehorn in a bunch of in-game rewards that don't make a lot of sense. The system simply isn't big enough or detailed enough to cram stats into as well.

I'll never say never but I think a decent kerbal stats system would need a lot of work and a wholesale rethink of the current xp system. Which doesn't seem very likely to happen although I'll happily chow down on a big slice of humble pie if it does.

Well exactly.... things have changed now... it may never be implemented, it may even be removed, but hidden, so the ones who panic will still show fear.

A game like KSP is always going to evolve, like in nature, one animal will appear but because it cannot adapt .... dies out.

I was merely explaining why it may have been there... and what might happen in the future. But who knows, "might" is a little word with big meaning.... will it be dropped, will it be expanded, will it just always be there.... who knows. In the mean time, KSP is a fairly decent game... it can only get better (or at least, one would hope!)