FleetAdmiralJ

OK, so you are in a two-seater plane. You are in the back seat giving directions, with the pilot in the front seat. You fly in the plane twice: one with a rookie pilot and one with a veteran pilot. While flying you give each pilot a set of identical, precise directions on how to fly the plane. Are you saying that literally the rookie pilot would fly the plane no differently than the veteran pilot, with no variations ever? Bill and Jeb are flying the same craft in the same direction with the same orders. Jeb is an awesome pilot and can keep the ship straight like an arrow during the burn. Bill is not so adept at steering and he wobbles here and there during the burn. Bill burns more fuel doing the same burn as Jeb.

I'm not sure there is a "kerbals have nothing to do" issue. I'm just saying that if you use the interpretation that you are telling the kerbals what they should be doing as opposed to literally flying the ship that just happens to have kerbals on board, that opens up the possibility that Kerbals can do things in a better or worse fashion. Again, the effect is in how kerbals use the parts, not a change in the part itself (even if programmatically it's effectively the same). Since when has Kerbal followed the same procedures that NASA does? If KSP was like NASA, you'd spend an hour building a ship, and hour creating a mission plan, press enter to launch the ship, go away and come back 2 hours later with the capsule splashing down because everything was already pre-programmed. But that's not how KSP works. Now, granted, solar panels in the game generally work "automatically." But who is to say that the Kerbal ISN'T having to essentially manually track the sun themselves? Or perhaps having to enter calculations for it to that themselves. "Because NASA doesn't do that" isn't really an argument. Nice, how that the poll isn't quite as overwhelming as it was last night, we have to now redefine the poll to try to make it appear as overwhelming. GG. Then why can't you control a pod that doesn't have a Kerbal inside if the Kerbal inside isn't doing anything?

Wait...are aren't you justifying my "going to extremes" by turning around and saying that one plays the game with "the normal god mentality"? How is playing god not the same thing as "you fly the ship yourself"? However, the larger point I'm making is this: Players seem to have two choices, or two interpretations of what is happening. Either: A) The player controls everything, and the kerbal does nothing, and is just there. In that case, Kerbal XP has no point because the Kerbal isn't doing anything to influence in the first place. You can basically have a Final Frontier system to show where they've been, but not much else. You accept the abstraction that, while you may tell the Kerbal what to do, it is still the actual Kerbal executing those commands. If you accept that it is the Kerbal him or herself that is doing the actual driving, then that opens the door to there being variations in how well or how efficiently or how "on the line" different kerbals can accomplish the command you give them. Now, interpretation B doesn't have to inevitably lead to Kerbals being able to do things differently, but it makes that interpretation possible. Here is another example: Let's say there is an electrical engineer kerbal type. And this kerbal is able to, in theory, more efficiently manage the electricity usage, or better aim solar solar panels, and thus allowing electricity usage to go down at a lower rate, or to recharge at a higher rate. This is still "changing part attributes" according to some here. But I'm wondering if people would be cool with that. Or if any and all parts must perform exactly the same in all circumstances regardless of experience? (which again, begs the question of why even bother having experience in the first place then)

I'm not sure how Kerbal XP can be done at all if you take away virtually every avenue where it can actually affect anything. After all, if one's position is effectively that you, the player, are playing the game and "the kerbal" has no impact, then whether the kerbal levels up or not is irrelevant to anything and everything. It serves no purpose because the kerbal doesn't "do" anything to begin with to alter.

If the ship had auto-pilot, perhaps. If the Kerbal, at in theory in the game, is having to control the controls stick during the burn, perhaps not so much. It's not a matter of roleplay. First, you literally cannot control a capsule without a kerbal in it. If you were "god" you could. But you can't. Second, yes, we can control the flow of time. In one direction. Because this type of game dictates it. Unless you really want to sit there for literally two years while your ship goes to Duna. As it is in every game known to man, pretty much. So...ban leveling up from every game henceforth? Aha! So you aren't god. You need someone in the capsule to actually execute your commands. Thanks for agreeing with me on that point. My impression (and I'm just guessing) is that the implementation would be more of the latter. You would simulate a kerbal who can't drive by essentially "stealing" dV away from them. I think this part is important to think about as far as implementation: essentially - where is the baseline? Or perhaps better asked - if you had a computer on board perfectly executing commands, what would the values be. Now, is the system going to be implemented where, say, probes get the same dV values as Level 5 (since that is apparently the top level they're looking at) Kerbals, or do they get the same values as Level 1 Kerbals? If it's a system where Kerbals are getting better at flying then, in theory, probes would fly with the same ability as level 5 Kerbals, not Level 1 kerbals. Now, one could get around that by perhaps saying that Kerbals aren't all that skilled at programming flight computers, which I suppose would be a sufficient although not ideal explanation. Or to put it another way: Do higher level Kerbals Add to the baseline, or do lower level kerbals subtract from the baseline?

Well, clearly i'm in the minority here. But I will leave (for now) with this: Proof that it is indeed Kerbals who are driving (using our direction): You have a Kerbal in a command pod. You tell the command pod to move. It moves. You remove the Kerbal. You can no longer move the command pod. Why? Because a Kerbal is necessary to control it. Why? Because while you are pressing the buttons, the Kerbal is following your orders by actually performing the actions. As it is now, those orders are followed perfectly. With XP, it's possible that Kerbals might follow those orders more or less accurately. Whether one likes that as a type of gameplay is one thing. To say that it's bunk because Kerbals are absolutely passive is well, apparently wrong per the above example. OK, almost last thing. Of course they would be capable of botching a Mun landing with Super Jeb. Jeb isn't making decisions. He is just implementing your decisions more efficiently. If you make bad decisions, Jeb will implement those bad decisions more efficiently. It is modeling their piloting skill - within the confines that they are doing what you tell them to do. They cannot make decisions on their own.. But once told what to do, they can execute those instructions to a greater or lesser ability.

The Kerbal doesn't make decisions. Whether the kerbal is actually pulling the levers at your command or not is up to interpretation. I would imagine that if the player is a bad pilot, they are still going to crash on the Mun, regardless of Jeb's abilities. Well my point there wasn't that the firing of the retro thrusters would be effected. That was just the set up. But Gus was able to fly the ship closer to the intended recovery point more than perhaps a less piloted astronaut might have been able to do as a real life example of an astronaut's ability actually affecting how a mission progressed.

Here is how, and why I think semantics matters here: You have just enough fuel to fly back to 71km with the pilot you have because, god bless him, as hard as they try, they just can't steer well enough to burn efficiently. But if you put Jeb in the seat, he can keep on a straight line better and can now stretch that fuel farther. Again, I think this ultimately comes down to how one interprets what is happening (a lot of that will be determined by how Squad exactly explains what is happening when we get to that point). If one sees it as engines magically becoming more efficient, then yeah, it looks dumb. If one sees it as one pilot is better than the other, then it looks less dumb. Now, I'll agree. If how they explain it in game is that engines LITERALLY become more efficient, I will agree, it will be stupid. If they explain it as Jeb is a better pilot, I will be fine with it. Even if the actual implementation of those two ideals are virtually identical.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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

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.

I personally don't have a problem with Kerbals being able to fly a ship more efficiently, but I'm clearly in the pretty small minority in that view. I can see why some people would be against that but I'm rather surprised at the overwhelming retching at the idea. Of course, if you can't alter part stats, then that pretty much means their entire idea for kerbal experience goes out the window because, you can have kerbals who increase science stats and then kerbals who do....???? But isn't what you are saying an example that different players experiences WOULD be the same. If you have X matched with Y and Z, then it'll work for everyone. We already have a game where different players can play the game in radically different ways. Depending on what things you choose in the admin building (if any), the process you have to go through to gain money or science or reputation may be completely different. We're not talking about (at least I don't think we are) Kerbal abilities suddenly changing your course. We're talking about the difference between a kerbal flying right on the line and a kerbal, in theory, wobbling all over the place trying to stay on that line and thus wasting fuel. One isn't breaking physics, one is simply making a kerbal better or worse at the task they are doing, just like many other characters experience in other game. And really, whose orbital transfers go perfectly anyway. I mean, sure sometimes. But I almost never get a burn - especially a long burn - right the first time anyway.

I guess my thought on this is this: 1) If someone wants science to be grindy and take time to collect all of that, they can be my guest, but no one is forcing anyone to collect that data. If you want to ignore KSC biomes, go ahead and do it! 2) It CAN be useful if one needs science in a crunch. I had largely ignored KSC Science (as I usually do) but at one point I needed some science for a part that I really wanted at the time, so I went around to every building and got enough science that I needed (just the large buildings and runway). At this point I probably have enough science that I won't need to worry having to do that again. I think people are somewhat looking at this different. People play the game differently, and have different goals for the game. Because you don't or don't like walking all over KSC for science (then don't!) doesn't mean someone else doesn't want to do it. That's what's so great about the game: you can play it however you want!

Also, doesn't FAR/NEAR kind of shoehorn proper aerodynamic calculations into the game? I'm not a modder so I might be wrong, but wouldn't that sort of coding be rather different than integrating it into the game proper?

As I think has been pointed out before, there are very few things that squad might implemented that haven't already been implemented in some form in mods, so they'll either buy a mod and integrate it, then be accused of mooching off other's work, or they'll do their own thing, and be accused of mooching off what others have done because it's really similar to what a mod has done because really, what can they do at this point which isn't? But if they don't implement the mod, then they are leaving out a critical function of the game. *shrugs*

To the extent I've played it, I've enjoyed it. I think for some people in .25, there isn't a whole lot there except difficulty settings. the Admin things can help out, but they aren't necessarily a big deal, and most people won't be blowing up buildings in 0.25. And if you mainly build rockets, the plain parts aren't a big deal too. so part of it is that the additions in .25 just won't apply to a non-trivial number of players. But it will matter a lot of a lot of other players. As usual, I think it just depends how you play the game and what you play the game for as to whether the update does a lot for you or not.

Beta versions are often numbered starting at 0.90. Not always, but it's not uncommon, for the reason that it's basically meant to show "we're close but not quite there yet" They clearly haven't decided on a final list themselves, so obviously it not being listed doesn't mean it won't be there. But having said that: They made it clear they won't be adding realism for the sake of realism, and both Deadly Re-entry and TAC life support, at least as they stand right now, are a pure "adding realism to make the game harder and for the sake of realism" mods. I'm sure some people find them fun, but I'm not sure how many new players will like the game with all their kerbals dying due to lack of oxygen or burning up in the atmosphere. We have mods for it that advanced users can use. I'm not sure how much of a reson there is to force those features on less experienced players unless they are greatly altered or scaled back. Did you read the post? Your thing about "it seems like they even gave up on multiplayer" suggests that you didn't read it, or not very well.

Congratulations on joining the madness Nice. I'm not sure how long it look me to do a rendezvous. Probably not that quick. No one knows! It is highly speculated that it is what remains of, um, Kerbals who fell into unfortunate circumstances. Going for all the biomes at once probably isn't a good idea. The KSC has a "biome" at every building. Once you have batteries, feel free to attach to command pods end to end with a couple of batteries and just roll to each building to get biome science. Or if you're patient enough, just walk Kerbals there (be careful when time warping, though! They can go poof!). After that, your next best step would probably be to get into orbit and get orbital data. You can get EVA science over each biome from orbit. Once you get that science, you can try flying small rockets to the shores, grasslands, and highlands that are immediately to the west of the KSC (and don't forget the water!). You can also drop a pod from orbit onto the desert, which is a pretty large target as well. If you're up for it, you can do the same for either of the two polar regions as well. That will get you the bulk of the science from Kerbin. And if you can unlock things like goo and the science bay before you drop in on the different biomes, then even better. For crew reports (and for all other science as well), there is "surface," "flying," and "flying high" for Kerbin. For everything but the EVA, being in a craft landed in a biome will get you surface science. If you are above the ground to 18,000 meters, you will get flying, and above 18,000 meters to space will be flying high on Kerbin. You also have In space over Kerbin (in orbit) and in space high above Kerbin (over 250,000 meters above Kerbin) The same altitudes hold for all science readings - good, science bay, EVAs, everything. Edit: I forgot, unless you have a science lab, you can't really "reuse" Goo canisters or Science Jrs. So if you want to do 3 or 4 good readings, remember to bring 3 or 4 goo canisters! For me, Kerbal Engineer and Kerbal Alarm Clock are musts as they keep you from warping past maneuver nodes (which you may not have dealt with yet but will soon). Engineer is just good for making sure you dont under or overbuild your craft. I also like Alternate Resource Panel just because it makes the resources look prettier. Other than that, I also like Crew Manifest because it allows you to create and name your own Kerbals. And if you want Kerbin to look all nice and spiffy, I would suggest Environmental Visual Enhancements. As for parts mods, I'll leave others to suggest those as I haven't really played with many parts or game-altering mods.