FleetAdmiralJ

When do they complain about speculation? I've seen some people complain about demanding/wanting things which squad has more or less already said they won't do. but just generally speculation? I typically don't see complaints about that.

Ah, that would help explain things if that is the case. I was going to try an experiment to try landing Kerbals and have some plant flags and some not to see if it makes a difference. If it does, that might help explain why.

Hmm, so planting a flag on Minmus actually grants more than just landing? (the wiki suggested it didn't matter, which is why I didn't bother). I guess I can try that and see if it makes a difference.

I couldn't really find an old thread talking about XP Level up levels and all the information I could find was on the wiki so I have a question: What does it take to get kerbals to level up? Getting to level 1 is easy: Fly and get into orbit to get 2 XP, which gets any Kerbal up to level 1. However, the (unofficial) wiki says that to get to Level 2, you need 8 XP. It also says that landing on Minmus will give you 6 XP. So I had a great idea: Start sending level 1 Kerbals with 2 XP each to minmus, land them there, bring them back, and they'll all be Level 2 kerbals right? Well, apparently not so. The astronaut complex says they have 2 XP from Kerbin and 6 from Minmus, and the XP bar is FULL but...no level up. Is there something else that needs to happen? Do I need 9 XP instead of 8, and thus at least a swing through Mun's SOI?

And don't forget that a big part of getting to Eeloo is avoiding Jool, which often likes getting in the way.

I never really saw a planet as useful/useless based on whether it has moon or not. I mean, heck, in our solar system both Venus and Mars are very interesting. Venus has no moons, and Mars has two moons we virtually entirely ignore. I'm also not sure why atmospheres are necessary for a planet to be interesting either. But that's just me. *shrugs* I've been to all three. Moho and Dres are interesting just because they're such a pain to get to. And Eeloo has it's own curiosities.

I find Eve to be harder b/c I find it much more difficult to build a single ship that has the dV necessary to reliably get off of Eve. The Jool 5 mission is, relatively, elementary except for perhaps Tylo, but it's still not hard compared to Eve

Yeah, I think the shaking is just things blowing up. Also, which building blew up? Is it possible a part flew off your rocket and was just an (un)lucky hit on a building? Also remember this tip: Always use launch clamps when possible. That should take care of most of your exploding-on-physics-load rocket problems.

Batteries have a clear purpose for being necessary in running a remote (providing power). What purpose does a Kerbal have in a pod if he's not pushing buttons that requires it's presence?

Any new feature is going to require players to conform to specific mindset to some extent, unless you play sandbox, in which case this entire discussion is irrelevant. However, addressing your first point: it's hard to argue that you aren't "giving orders to the kerbals" or else you would be able to fly command pods without kerbals in them, which of course you can't. Requiring kerbals to be in the pods to operate them implies that the kerbals are the ones actually pushing the buttons. If one takes the stand that giving kerbals attributes doesn't make sense because Kerbals aren't doing anything to begin with, then the logical extension to that is Kerbals shouldn't be required to fly at all. But of course they are (unless you use a probe anyway). so the idea is both, simultaneously, an egregious violation of physics and your ability to role play and an irrelevant improvement that doesn't actually do anything. I get it. As for suggestions, I haven't been through the posts from overnight so I can't speak to those, But I would say that maybe 2-3% of the first 400 posts in this thread had some semblance of suggestions, and most of them either suffered from the same problems (in that they would violate physics based on people's arugments) or would have problems violating people's right to role play as they wished, which appears to be one of your major concerns. And yes, the vast, vast, vast majority of messages were not just opposition but near "I will quit playing this game" opposition. I don't think Squad is blindly following the community. I also don't think Squad believes their original idea was a mistake either. But they do recognize that including a feature that incites such widespread criticism is a mistake. Squad hasn't been afraid to include features that many in the community disliked before, but the discussion was often more split on those features. I think that could be a way to deal with. Perhaps Up to Level 3, kerbals can only focus on a single class, but perhaps they can add additional specializations with classes 4 and 5, so you can reduce the number of required kerbals you need by including higher ranked Kerbals. That could be a decent way to get around that issue. I think rep should be required to train to some extent, just because we need a way to spend rep. But that's what the admin building is for. If you want to spend money on training, you now have a reason to convert cash into reputation.

I had thought of something along those lines - Like a engine specialist Kerbal, an electrical specialist kerbal, etc. that would all be needed to "use" those parts. I guess my main concern with that it could turn into a situation where you have a ship and you would be required to bring 5 different classes of kerbals with you to make sure everything worked. Maybe that's not a problem, but I think it might limit what some people can do in the game if going to Jool ends up requiring a Level 4 engine specialist, Level 3 Electrical Engineer, Level 4 Navigator, and a Level 5 Scientist to make sure everything actually works. And if one of them somehow gets killed, the whole mission might be doomed (though I suppose there are plusses and minuses to that too)

Having to say this rocket is built for a Level 3 pilot Kerbal may be an added step in sharing ships, but it doesn't make it unpredictable. If you have ship A matched with Kerbal of Skill Y, it works. It's an added variable? Yes. Unpredictable? No. Or better yet, build a ship that works with a Level 1 Kerbal, and then it will work for every kerbal regardless of level (though I suppose that might not work if you try to build ships that use every drop of dV and fuel precisely). I don't even think that description is all that complex, but even giving you that, I don't think one needs all that in the game. Simply say Jeb can fly more efficiently than Bill. I would put simply having science and currency games under the "completely pointless" category because we already have a system to boost our science and money (and reputation). I don't think it's an ideal solution. I actually think the original idea was better. There are still issues with it. It also, still, doesn't seem to be the favored alternative here. But at least it's not terrible.

I think there are alternative - see my edit in my previous post. And perhaps the way Kerbals gain XP can stay intact, but the idea of Kerbals having different classes would seem to need to be revamped. Or at least the classes of Kerbals they had envisioned would need to be revamped. And it would add another level of coding to the game that they perhaps weren't planning on. Though I suppose it might not be too terrible to just have some trait on each part which represents minimum kerbal level required to use. That's a decent idea, and as long as it's toggleable, then at least it's not enforced MechJebbing. But here was my problem with that idea after thinking about it: When would you ever trust "bad pilot Bob" to fly? You probably wouldn't. Players would ONLY allow top level Kerbals to fly (if they did at all). I think that undermines the system. Unless the only way they can increase their piloting skill is to allow them to fly on their own when they're lower level Kerbals. And one still has the problem of what do you really add to the game? Unless you're bad at piloting capsules personally, the only thing one gains is convenience - maybe.

I know i'm probably just contradicting my previous post but here is my problem with the argument: the argument seems to be based on the assumption that with the engine tweaks, the game would have been unpredictable. In fact: it wouldn't have. In fact, Squad's attempt to KEEP the game predictable was used as an argument against it, and really, formed the entire basis that the functionality broke physics in the first place. So the point is to create differences in Kerbals, that give you certain advantages, while also keeping the game predictable. That's why Level 3 Jeb can drive more efficiently than Level 2 Bill. But that opens up problems: namely that if Bill's inefficiency is actually expressed in game, he will literally not go where the player tells him to go. That can be both frustrating and introduces the problem of random error. To solve that problem, they allow the ship to go where the player wants to, but basically credits better pilots with an efficiency fuel bonus. That way, if you build a ship, and you know Bill will fly it instead of Jeb, you KNOW how much of a penalty you will get that you can knowingly and predictably build into the craft. Literally nothing has changed except the amount of dV (or whatever attribute got enhanced or deducted) needed. Your ability to land on the Mun isn't impacted. Your ability to burn accurately isn't impacted. Your ability to get a good intercept isn't impacted. Your ability to fly a ship with "flawless execution" is, frankly, not impacted. The problem with implementing it this way is what people who are against it point out: you end up having variations in fuel usage or dV usage, while the start point, path, and end point are identical, even if the enhancements are supposed to imply a more or less efficient burn. So we see the problem with the whole exercise: If you want kerbals to be different, and you want that expressed in their ability to fly, you essentially have two choices, neither of them supported by players (apparently): You either introduce random errors, which would impact Cpt. Kipard's ability to personally execute his planning and execution, or you apply a buff, but which in practical expression in game creates a "violating physics" problem. Now, I had no problem with essentially simulating a more efficient pilot, but clearly that's the minority view here. But I think it was a good faith effort to at least split the difference and come up with a compromise solution. Clearly not even that is even remotely acceptable to most here. Which brings me back to why I think Kerbal Expressions, as thus far envisioned, is likely going to have to be scrapped: there is just no way to implement it without either making similar compromises elsewhere, or making the "gains" you get completely pointless. Color me completely unthrilled with the idea that a Kerbal can now go out and fix a solar panel as some sort of actual "skill" that I'm ever going to actually use. Edit: Just to add, I'm not sure Kerbals being stupid or reckless need be part of that discussion. It's simply that Jeb is a better pilot than Bill, and that is expressed by a fuel or ISP credit while not actually violating the player's control of the craft. As I said, it was a good idea. Clearly I (and Squad) is in the majority in believing that. I've thought about some of the alternate ways kerbal experiences could work, and I think the most promising is the need to have more experienced kerbals in order to use technology that is further down the tech tree, with experienced either gained from missions, or by spending reputation to train kerbals. Maybe you always have to spend reputation to train kerbals, but it costs less for higher level Kerbals. I think such a system actually brings significant purpose to Kerbal XP levels while, at least on first blush, seemingly violating anything. A close cousin to this is requiring higher level Kerbals to go on certain missions, but after thinking on it, this idea has a somewhat fatal flaw: such constrictions would have be done on the contract level. For example, the Explore Jool contract could require a Level 3 Kerbal or higher on board to be completed. But otherwise, the game can't stop you from sending a ship full of Level 1 kerbals to Jool if you want. So that idea ends up not being so great. Meanwhile, the parts-based idea can be enforced regardless of the situation.

So I swing in and...unless something new has been announced since yesterday afternoon, people are STILL arguing over the engine perks stuff? I didn't mind it, but really, they canned it (and we'll have to see how much more they'll have to can as a result in the future). I'm not sure how much point there is in arguing over it anymore.

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

The best alternate idea I've seen is using experience to limit where Kerbals can go and/or what parts they use (and perhaps spend reputation to train kerbals, as we really do need a way to spend that currency). But even that seems somewhat hollow in the sense that, OK, it adds a speedbump to something a lot of people may not spend much, if any, time thinking about to begin with, which is sticking Kerbals onto a ship. But I think anything beyond that or yet another way to farm money/science/reputation will be met with much the same reaction. Again, a lot of that is driven by the apparent vision that Kerbals aren't actually doing anything when they fly, so upgrading them has little point. in fact, you could use that as an argument as to why even forcing reputation requirements on missions or parts doesn't make sense. After all, if Kerbals aren't doing anything, why does it matter who you send? Such a view on Kerbals pretty much rips out any point to even having reputation at all, pretty much.

Here is my thing: we got a decent idea of what they had in mind. I think we had enough to be able to form opinions and educated guesses. But it seems like most people don't want anything that disrupts their current game play to any significant amount. Some people have gone out and suggested things like needing experience to go on certain missions, but most people seem to just want more boosts for the 3 currency. I'd actually like something NEW rather than just a new way to get science and money. It doesn't HAVE to be what was proposed in the dev notes, but something new and unique would be nice

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.

OK, so I have gone through the entirety of the thread and come up with this. I would have liked to more fully quoted ideas, but to save space I will try to summarize them. The first thing to note is this: It’s hard to see how Kerbal Experience, as envisioned in the dev notes, survives without the ability to improve performance. There just isn’t anything for Kerbals to “do†without it. Pretty much the ONLY suggested “improvement†people seem OK with is improving science. And let’s be real. You can’t have JUST scientist astronauts. First, let’s get ideas out of the way that appear to suffer the same problems as what people are complaining about: 1) Having electrical engineers that allow kerbals to use/generate power more efficiently 2) Having SAS function better with experienced kerbals 3) Any other alteration that improves performance of pretty much anything [which makes it hard for kerbal experience to really matter in any meaningful way in my opinion] Next, let’s get into the “we already do that elsewhere, so why add that functionality yet again†category, which seems to be what most people are suggesting, which includes: 4) Experienced kerbals improve science 5) Experienced kerbals bring back more money 6) Experienced kerbals bring in more reputation. My thoughts on this is this: we already have ways of increasing production of all three currencies: it’s the admin building. In fact, it's possible this would lead to literally duplicating what the admin building already does: trading reputation for money or science. We already have a way to increase money additionally by landing close to the KSC. And people already complain that science is too plentiful in the game. And isn’t part of the point of this to SPEND reputation (or otherwise make it important)? People seem fine increasing the 3 currencies using experience, but we already have multiple ways of doing that already. I’m not sure what doing it AGAIN really adds to the game. Next, I’ll list some ideas which, well, let’s just say I don’t think they make sense - or at least are incompatible with many of the arguments I see here. Obviously they did to whomever suggested them. I’ll let everyone else decide on their own: 7) Have an EVA specialist who can fix solar panels [my note: really? REALLY? I’ve needed to do that about twice ever. Worst. Skill. Ever.] 8) Make Kerbals black out due to G-LOC. [my note: interesting idea, except most people here have based their entire arguments around the idea that the Kerbals aren’t actually doing anything, so who cares if they black out. I actually don’t mind this idea, but it would mean people having to actually admit that Kerbals are manning the controls.] 9) Have Kerbals automate flying [my note: this would seem to effectively MechJebs the game, which I have a feeling won’t go over very well either) Now, onto the ideas that I think are intriguing, or at least plausibly workable: 10) Require more experienced kerbels to fly certain level of missions [i actually like this idea] 10a) Restrict certain use of certain parts to kerbals of certain reputation [put this as 10a b/c the concept is similar. Also an interesting idea; edit: there was also a suggestion to spend reputation to train kerbals on the ground. Also interesting idea] 11) Have a Navigator verbal that helps plots better course [i’m not sure how one could scale this to different tech levels, but if someone could flesh out a plausible way to do that, it could have potential] 12) Restrict inexperienced Kerbal’s ability to EVA [relatively minor, but interesting] 13) Changing response time based on experience [interesting, though I could see the same howls about how Bill isn’t actually flying so he shouldn’t affect how quickly the ship responds to commands] The perhaps most thought out idea is the idea that Kerbals can't fly missions and/or can't fly parts until they reach a certain reputation, which could have interesting implications if you suddenly kill all of your experienced kerbals in the late game on a mission to Jool. (Also: what about probes?). But it would seem that any sort of experience tracking would have to move away from "classes" of Kerbals, which is where it seems to be at now and more toward kerbals uniformly improving (eg. If the same 3 kerbals go on all the exact same missions, their experience stats will be identical)

Which, I wonder, leaves what for experience kerbals to do? That was my whole thing. I wouldn't be shocked if we soon get word that they're basically starting from scratch on the whole kerbal experience thing, because if upgrading kerbals don't actually let you improve performance, then why even bother with the whole exercise to begin with? Now what I'm afraid of is something like what a couple people have suggested, where an experienced kerbal would allow one to go out and, say, fix a solar panel. Or in other words, it does exactly bunk.

I think they are doing it this for this reason: They still want the game to be predictable, while having variations in Kerbal abilities. Simply slapping a 2% penalty or boost on engine efficiency to simulate someone driving better or worse is simplistic, but it also keeps the game predictable. If you have bob, who flys 2% worse than Jeb, on a mission, then you can reliably and predictably control for that. But if you have a ship flying off course because Bob is a bad driver, suddenly you lose your predictability and start introducing what in effect become random problems into the game (which the devs have apparently wanted to try to avoid). I suppose you could reduce the randomness of it less if, say, controls got more sluggish with Bill than with Jeb, but I wonder how well that would go over too. People would likely respond the same way: the control stick moves just as well, regardless of whether Bill or Jeb is moving it.

I've seen 30 pages of "this sucks." I've seen very little on what system they should actually implement. Namely because, given how most people here view the game, there IS NO system they COULD implement. Other than maybe something like Final Frontier that shows you where kerbals have been, but little else. Again, you're assuming Kerbals operate their space program like NASA.

You don't need to rewire a ship to do tasks in a certain order to make them more power efficient.

You may want to go into IVA mode and take a harder look. so Kerbal XP literally has no point. And here is where we go from "Here is what is happening in the game abstractly" (eg Bill can't fly as well) to how it gets implemented in code. One way to implement a less efficient driver is by making the engine less efficient while they are driving - from a coding point of view. But I think it's clear from some of the posts from the dev team that that is not how it is planned to be portrayed in game.