Kerbals Hiring - feature - V1.0

[Jaeleth]

I learned today on the KSP launcher newsflash, that V1.0 will feature hiring costs for Kerbals. That's fine and well, as it adds to realism. But I also heard about another thing that worries me... That hiring the N+1 kerbal will cost more than hiring the Nth kerbal... Now this poses 2 problems:

1. It is ultimately unrealistic, hiring the 100th co-worker isn't more costly than hiring the 99th unless the 100th is more specialized than the 99th... (And that should be the only thing making a difference)

2. Since advanced robotics is easy to get at in KSP (unlike in real life), by "advanced" I mean robots capable of knowing all flight parameters (easy), making piloting decisions on the spot (difficult) or handling a fast moving rover on a distant world (extremely difficult), this added feature will wipe the little green man out of the space program entirely. They will be reduced to the sad, lonely, task of planting a flag and be marooned on a distant world, forever... Worse... If the need arises, they will be disposed of, just to be able to hire more at home which is, ultimately, bad education for young players... Life is not expendable, even that of little green, virtual, men.

How to solve the problem, keeping realism?

1. Hire costs according to skills, some can come already trained.

2. Salaries/Pensions... This will add to the daily costs of having a large workforce, in a natural way. Plus... If you leave a kerbal on a remote planet he/she will earn a salary, forever. If you kill him, you have to pay retirement pensions (to the family) this will introduce responsability in the game. The only way to cut the cost is to bring the kerbal back safely and dismiss him/her.

3. As for the "need" of having Kerbals, Remote Tech mod does a great job at it but, alas, one day robots will be intelligent and will replace us all, little green man on planet Earth, anyway...

[gmiddlemass]

+1 on hiring costs being based on Kerbal skills or bravery/stupidity levels.

[micha]

Definitely; hiring cost being based on experience (and possibly stats) makes sense.

Wages also make sense as an advanced difficulty setting.

Add a training facility to the astronaut complex so you can train up your Kerbals instead of having to send them to Jool and back just to repair a broken lander leg and things start looking a bit saner.

Never could figure out why an engineer needs to plant a flag on a distant planet in order to figure out how to use a screwdriver..

[rockowwc]

I have installed a mod just for that already. Kerbanomics....

Costs me 20K when I kill one as well..

[kerbiloid]

One more mod becomes actual now: "Kerbals' Credit History".

A Kerbal with bad credit history would cost less.

[monophonic]

I learned today on the KSP launcher newsflash, that V1.0 will feature hiring costs for Kerbals. That's fine and well, as it adds to realism. But I also heard about another thing that worries me... That hiring the N+1 kerbal will cost more than hiring the Nth kerbal... Now this poses 2 problems:

1. It is ultimately unrealistic, hiring the 100th co-worker isn't more costly than hiring the 99th unless the 100th is more specialized than the 99th... (And that should be the only thing making a difference)

2. Since advanced robotics is easy to get at in KSP (unlike in real life), by "advanced" I mean robots capable of knowing all flight parameters (easy), making piloting decisions on the spot (difficult) or handling a fast moving rover on a distant world (extremely difficult), this added feature will wipe the little green man out of the space program entirely. They will be reduced to the sad, lonely, task of planting a flag and be marooned on a distant world, forever... Worse... If the need arises, they will be disposed of, just to be able to hire more at home which is, ultimately, bad education for young players... Life is not expendable, even that of little green, virtual, men.

How to solve the problem, keeping realism?

1. Hire costs according to skills, some can come already trained.

2. Salaries/Pensions... This will add to the daily costs of having a large workforce, in a natural way. Plus... If you leave a kerbal on a remote planet he/she will earn a salary, forever. If you kill him, you have to pay retirement pensions (to the family) this will introduce responsability in the game. The only way to cut the cost is to bring the kerbal back safely and dismiss him/her.

3. As for the "need" of having Kerbals, Remote Tech mod does a great job at it but, alas, one day robots will be intelligent and will replace us all, little green man on planet Earth, anyway...

I agree size of current roster is hard to see as a believable basis for increasing hiring cost. It may work as an incentive to do those rescue mission, especially if in later game they become harder and harder. Although I do find it hard to believe that hiring kerbals until every single one works for you could be made to cost more than sending a mission to Moho or Eeloo...

Hiring costs for skills I can believe. I would even accept hiring costs inceasing based on the amount of equal-or-better level kerbals of the same skill you already have. Just imagine asking a recruitment agent to get you one of world's top 100 pilots, and in response get this: "You already have 99 of them. It will be very difficult to convince the last one to join. It will be very expensive."

Salaries and pensions while believable are right out the window as they would impact the basic premise of the game too much. Basically it would turn "send a ship to interplanetary and timewarp until there" into a game losing proposition. Continous money sinks just won't work in a game without continous money sources (like renting stations/bases could be). I don't think Squad will go there as I feel they want the game to be more about doing spacey wacey stuff than about managing cashey washey stuff. I'm sure there will be mods for these though.

Remote Tech indeed makes having kerbals on site very necessary for most things. But even in stock game you need them to take surface samples, plant flags, write EVA and crew reports. Probes cannot repair their wheels or repack parachutes either. The latter especially limits certain mission profiles for probes. So there is already incentive to send manned missions instead of probes only.

[pincushionman]

It's probably a workaround to give a challenge to having large staffs -another reason to force you to take money-making contracts at times.

The "realistic" way is to have recurring costs based on your astronauts and building levels. But for that to make sense, time has to have meaning as a resource. Such as ship build time and tech unlock time, a la KCT.

…but for some reason Squad doesn't want to introduce time-costing mechanics "because players will just timewarp through the waits." Which is BS, with recurring costs you simply can't afford to do that!

So…I see what they're trying to achieve, but it feels like a kludge to me.

[Cebi]

From economics point of view every new employee will raise marginal cost of next one hired...im ok with some shortcuts in gameplay in this department.

[JimmyAgent007]

paying kerbals over time would also cause issues with long term missions. sending something to jool or wherever it would force you to take on contracts during that mission rather than timewarp to the windows and focus on one mission at a time. other features that give you stuff over time can be abused by the time warp, costing stuff over time lets the timewarp abuse you. (that sounds wrong) it COULD work for certain players but not all of them, i like to focus on one mission at a time even if it takes a few years. so its something that mods should definitely do like they are currently.

I do like the idea of hiring skilled kerbals and/or training them with money.

[monstah]

Mod combo breaker?

Anyway, I think the N+1 thing is a simplification of overhead costs of keeping N Kerbals. It only applies to active ones, by the way, so if you kill your N+1th kerbal, hiring a new one will cost the same as the previous one, since you'll be down to N again.

I'm fine with it.

- - - Updated - - -

What the hell? My name is green??

- - - Updated - - -

Meh, april fools. Duh me.

[tater]

It's probably a workaround to give a challenge to having large staffs -another reason to force you to take money-making contracts at times.

The "realistic" way is to have recurring costs based on your astronauts and building levels. But for that to make sense, time has to have meaning as a resource. Such as ship build time and tech unlock time, a la KCT.

…but for some reason Squad doesn't want to introduce time-costing mechanics "because players will just timewarp through the waits." Which is BS, with recurring costs you simply can't afford to do that!

So…I see what they're trying to achieve, but it feels like a kludge to me.

This. The lack of time-based mechanics is a serious problem on multiple levels.

[Scotius]

I have a bunch of Kerbals all over the system. With new experience system i started sending big crews - 6 to 10 Kerbals on missions to Duna and Eve to get experienced personnel relatively fast. With new hiring cost rising with every kerbonaut i will have to grind roots even harder than now. I'm not sure yet if i like this idea or not

[Doctor Axel]

I'd also prefer if they'd go ahead and embrace time-sensitive game mechanics. A lot of stuff would start to make a lot more sense, like wages. While I enjoy KCT and Kerbanomics and will continue to use them if they are updated for 1.0, I would greatly prefer the same features to be stock.

Still though, at least hiring will cost SOMETHING now. ^^ That on its own is welcome.

[klgraham1013]

+1 on hiring costs being based on Kerbal skills or bravery/stupidity levels.

Now if only bravery and stupidity traits actually meant something.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Hire costs according to skills...

Basically this.

The proposed system is arbitrary. Claiming that it some how balances game play falls flat to me.

[tntristan12]

Now if only bravery and stupidity traits actually meant something.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically this.

The proposed system is arbitrary. Claiming that it some how balances game play falls flat to me.

Once I suggested that kerbals come unassigned (no pilots, sciences, or engies). You the player could assign them to whatever you want but their performance (like how much piloting they can do or science they get or things they repair) depends on how their stats.

So more smarts makes a kerbal a better scientist, higher courage makes a better pilot, and possibly a third stat for engineers (ingenuity?). A kerbal with all high rankings would be awesome in any role, otherwise you can pick them for the role they are best suited for. But let's say you want a pilot and no pilots are available for hire... well, now you can assign a kerbal to be a pilot even if their stats aren't optimal for that (so like as a last resort).

[klgraham1013]

From economics point of view every new employee will raise marginal cost of next one hired...im ok with some shortcuts in gameplay in this department.

Indeed, but isn't this increase in structure already simulated by spending funds upgrading the astronaut complex?

[Tw1]

I agree it's pretty odd.

If it's supposed to simulate how as you payroll grows, you'll be spending on wages, does that mean a kerbal are only gets paid when another gets hired?

I'm not sure it's the best choice, as currently you can do a fair bit by focusing on a few well-trained kerbals.

This also acts as a disincentive to setting up crewed bases and stations, no point having costly kerbals just sit around if they aren't doing much good.

I agree size of current roster is hard to see as a believable basis for increasing hiring cost. It may work as an incentive to do those rescue mission, especially if in later game they become harder and harder. Although I do find it hard to believe that hiring kerbals until every single one works for you could be made to cost more than sending a mission to Moho or Eeloo...

That does sort of make sense. It makes your options Rescue, (costing funds and adding risk), Abandon (making it harder to get new kerbals), or "Terminate" (costing you reputation.

Though adding a life support system would also bring penalties for abandoning kerbals.

The "realistic" way is to have recurring costs based on your astronauts and building levels. But for that to make sense, time has to have meaning as a resource. Such as ship build time and tech unlock time, a la KCT.

Not necessarily. Having wages as a cost per time would start to give time meaning as a resource. You already use time when time warping between places, until launch windows, etc.

I do completely agree it's silly that 'you can just timewarp' is given as a reason why the time something takes shouldn't be a factor. There'd be things to gain, and things to lose if you timewarp, it's up to the player to manage their space program well.

The game would be rewarding good management, more than ability to wait.

paying kerbals over time would also cause issues with long missions. sending something to jool or wherever it would force you to take on contracts during that mission rather than timewarp to the windows and focus on one mission at a time. .

True, but I don't think this is an all bad thing. It's more of a ballance, and player strategy issue. If kerbals don't cost to much, you have enough saved up, and your mission is well planed, you could still come out ahead. If it doesn't make sense to hold on to a kerbal, and they are costing you more than they gain, it might be time to consider laying of that kerbal.

I think an incentive to do a few missions at the same time would be quite good. It would give you a reason to hire and train more than the bare minimum of kerbals, if having more than you need for one mission at a time provides a benefit. It could make the game more about running the space program, not just flying and building things for it.

Though I can see it meaning a lot more grinding with test contracts.

This is partially why I'd've rather seen career mode take a large focus on time management from the beginning.

In my ideal game mode, most of your funds would come from a yearly payment from "sponsors".

determined by several factors: achievements, exploration, knowledge, research, and reputation.

Achievements: A hidden stat based on milestones you've completed in the game. Achieving orbit, achieving a docking, rendezvous, planets you've orbited/flew past/landed on, etc. Like kerbal experience points.

Exploration: How much planetary surface you've been to, taken samples of, taken photos of, etc, in the past year. Area not previously visited is worth more.

Knowledge: How much you've discovered about each planet. Collected sort of like the current science is.

Research: Determined by how many science experiments you've done, their valuedetermined similar to the current system, and how much research you've done. Research would be a special sort of contract. It would be run from a crewed lab, which would need a number of specific science parts, a number of kerbals, and take a considerable amount of time to complete. This idea assumes the addition of life support, making re-supply runs necessary.

Reputation: Basically what it is now. Gain it for completing contracts, achieving milestones, etc, loose it for killing or firing kerbals. Especially, veteran ones.

Basically, it would reward you for doing space program type things with your space program.

Reputation, achievements and knowledge would act like multipliers, but if you haven't made any new achievements, or done any exploration or research that year, you won't be getting any payment from your sponsors.

Contracts would still be there, but would play more of a secondary, letting you earn a few funds on the side

Edited April 3, 2015 by Tw1

[Aragosnat]

I could see a higher death penalty for having more active Kerbals. Word will hopefully get around that you are a Kerbal Killer.

Just that the more active = higher costs to hire does not make much sense. I could see it if there where no pilots available and you wanted to hire one where it would cost more to just find/convert one to such.

At least currently with how little we know about the system. The costs might not be a lot. But, still. It will likely give more insentives to use what is given from rescue missions (which become to few and far inbetween, at least on my current game; have not seen a rescue mission for over 100+ days) or just stay with probes and leave/fire all Kerbals behind.

Do like the idea that was mentioned where the skills should govern the hiring cost. That makes a lot moar sense then just arbitrarily adding costs to every new hire.

I can also see the level of the astronut complex governing the quality and cost of hiring too. Higher level = more likely to see highly skilled pilots sooner and potentially less unskilled ones.

[Rath]

I will probably just edit this out of the save file because when my orbit rockets cost 1000 funds per flight the cost of hiring a kerbal Is insignificant. (What percent of its budget does NASA give to its astronauts?)

[Cydonian Monk]

I like the idea of recruitment costs, but since I run with well over 100 kerbals already.... It's like the rent just went up. Way up. The game was already a grind, now even moreso.

Think I might just go back to full-time sandbox.

[Eric S]

paying kerbals over time would also cause issues with long term missions.

Very much this. In order for salaries to be even noticeable for a 2 day Mun mission, they'd be a significant fraction of the total mission cost just to go to Duna. Keep in mind that most craft that could land on the Mun and return could manage to orbit Duna and return, so the craft costs between the two missions aren't going to be that largely different unless you're sending a more ambitious craft.

Doing the cost this way (just as a hiring cost and more expensive as your roster gets bigger) means that the above isn't an issue, you're not going to run out of money after a mission is launched, and a larger roster is more expensive to have than a smaller roster. It's an approximation, but one that works for this game, in my opinion.

[klgraham1013]

I'd just like to repeat my stance that career should run off a periodic budget of some sort. I've been doing this in sandbox with life support and it's created some very interest game play situations. This sort of budget would also not be hindered by Kerbals earning salaries. With the current system, salaries would only increase the grind that already exists.

[Cydonian Monk]

I'd just like to repeat my stance that career should run off a periodic budget of some sort. ... This sort of budget would also not be hindered by Kerbals earning salaries. With the current system, salaries would only increase the grind that already exists.

I'd like to see a full-fledged Buzz Aldrin RIS/SPM with KSP mix, not the half-baked, not-quite-BARIS system KSP has now. One where you have to hire and train your crews and flight controllers, and maybe one where you have part-reliability determined by your engineering corps. (That might be a bit much to ask at the moment, though.)

[helaeon]

I kind of think that the more kerbals you've ever hired the more expensive they should be... and/or the longer your KIA list.

A supply and demand issue, if you're blowing through kerbal lives you'll need to offer a much much more generous compensation plan (and your insurance premiums will be nuts) in order to have a good supply of recruits.

[Jaeleth]

Mod combo breaker?

[...] by the way, so if you kill your N+1th kerbal, hiring a new one will cost the same as the previous one, since you'll be down to N again.

I'm fine with it.

That's precisely one of my points... Killing Kerbals for economic reasons is very very... very... un-educational. On an otherwise wonderfully educational game. "It's just a game", ok, but these "it's just a game" things, repeated here and there, again and again, slowly and silently crawl into younger minds and stay there and thrive until one day they one of them is a CEO on some company...