Kerbals too tough? (EVA self-rescue from munar orbit)

[The Destroyer]

1: Nah, I like it how it is, especially for my darn rescue missions

2: I found the exact opposite. They are paper. 50 KM 1km/s on Eve kills them...

3: Its all random luck.

[Duxwing]

I support making kerbals fragile and reducing their EVA pack dV to 100m/s. RCS landers have a purpose!

-Duxwing

[waterlubber]

I suggest making two jetpack options. An early tier one, and an optional late tier.

Starting Astronaut Complex: EVA, no pack, tethers

Tier 2: 100 m/s, low TWR

Tier 3: Current jetpack, but heavier and limited propellant. ^ is optional if you want to go light

[SmashingKirby148]

Oh. I had the whole Water living thing happen before and thought it was a miracle... nevermind...

[katateochi]

I agree they should be a bit more fragile and that a fall from a great height should be terminal. but they should still easily be able to survive falling of, say the roof of the VAB and if you land them head first from a great height they should still survive. Not for any other reason than because that's quirky and Kerbal.

BUT I strongly disagree about reducing the amount of EVA propellant!!

As it is it, it's just about the perfect level for doing an EVA bounce from Minmus orbit to the surface and back up to orbit again.

Why is this important to have? Because returning to orbit and rendezvousing with a craft without even a navball to guide you is a fun and different kind of challenge. It forces you navigate by land marks to ensure you stay on the right heading and it tests your ability to eye ball a rendezvous.

Sure you can do EVA landings on Gily but there's no challenge there, it's too easy. On Minmus there is a pretty small margin for error, if you get the descent or ascent wrong you'll wind up with insufficient EVA propellant to make the rendezvous. If they nerf the EVA dV then it takes this fun little aside out of the game and I think that would be a pity.

Yeah sure, you can use this little trick to mine science from Minmus for free, but really, having done that once I can say that doing that many consecutive EVA bounces is like some sort of Kerbal endurance trail and I'm unlikely to ever do it again (and I don't think many players will be bothered to make it a standard part of their approach to gaining science). But every now and then just doing the one EVA bounce to the surface and back up is an option I'd still like to have.

What I would rather see is that there is a limited supply of EVA fuel in the command pods so you can't keep re-boarding to refuel indefinitely. That would stop you using this to mine science from Minmus for free, but wouldn't prevent doing the one (or maybe two) bounces.

[Rainbow-Dashie]

I actually like the durable Kerbals, sure it's totally unrealistic but I like it. Makes them seem a bit more "Kerbal".

Reentry heart I could see being more of a problem for them, havnt actually tried to send a Kerbal through the atmosphere unprotected....

And the Reduced jetpack fuel/Power I could agree with, but wouldn't exactly want to happen.

I just like my squishy little durable kerbals.

[OddFunction]

I suggest making two jetpack options. An early tier one, and an optional late tier.

Starting Astronaut Complex: EVA, no pack, tethers

Tier 2: 100 m/s, low TWR

Tier 3: Current jetpack, but heavier and limited propellant. ^ is optional if you want to go light

This.... is actually brilliant.

[Greenfire32]

I have two arguments:

rovers have no purpose in low gravity bodies, they don't have enough traction for keep everything in control.

rovers will have a purpose once you make them pleasant to use, not by nerfing jetpacks to the ground. If I had no jetpacks I would just make a little vessel with RCS and a command chair, no way I'm going to be forced to use rovers in munar surface.

On the flip side, this would give MMU's (Manned Maneuvering Units) a purpose other that..."looks cool." XD

[Captain Sierra]

I agree they should be a bit more fragile and that a fall from a great height should be terminal. but they should still easily be able to survive falling of, say the roof of the VAB and if you land them head first from a great height they should still survive. Not for any other reason than because that's quirky and Kerbal.

BUT I strongly disagree about reducing the amount of EVA propellant!!

As it is it, it's just about the perfect level for doing an EVA bounce from Minmus orbit to the surface and back up to orbit again.

Why is this important to have? Because returning to orbit and rendezvousing with a craft without even a navball to guide you is a fun and different kind of challenge. It forces you navigate by land marks to ensure you stay on the right heading and it tests your ability to eye ball a rendezvous.

Sure you can do EVA landings on Gily but there's no challenge there, it's too easy. On Minmus there is a pretty small margin for error, if you get the descent or ascent wrong you'll wind up with insufficient EVA propellant to make the rendezvous. If they nerf the EVA dV then it takes this fun little aside out of the game and I think that would be a pity.

Yeah sure, you can use this little trick to mine science from Minmus for free, but really, having done that once I can say that doing that many consecutive EVA bounces is like some sort of Kerbal endurance trail and I'm unlikely to ever do it again (and I don't think many players will be bothered to make it a standard part of their approach to gaining science). But every now and then just doing the one EVA bounce to the surface and back up is an option I'd still like to have.

What I would rather see is that there is a limited supply of EVA fuel in the command pods so you can't keep re-boarding to refuel indefinitely. That would stop you using this to mine science from Minmus for free, but wouldn't prevent doing the one (or maybe two) bounces.

This, this entirely.

Also, IIRC the reason there is monoprop in the command pods is not to dock, but because they wanted to make kerbals refill from a craft's monopropellant reserves. If you brought 600 liters of the stuff, you could EVA bounce to Minmus and back as much as you want, but you had to lug that 600 liters with you.

[Korizan]

Does anyone else think that game mechanics are way too forgiving of kerbals?

- Their EVA propellant is way overpowered (too much dV)

- Reentry heat is way too forgiving for kerbals on EVA

- Surface impact is also way too forgiving for kerbals on EVA

What do folks think?

I am not being sarcastic I am serious.

- EVA - Well I have heard that they eat a lot of beans.

- Re-entry - Well I think if they get cooked then they should be running around with there pants on fire (I so want to see this)

- Surface Impact - Well Kerbal's BOUNCE or least they should in proportion to there impact speed.

In other words the Kerbals are the comedy factor in the game in my opinion and should be just that.

[klgraham1013]

Personally, I'd rather have to build an RCS hover rover then have the current jet pack.

[Tw1]

What I would rather see is that there is a limited supply of EVA fuel in the command pods so you can't keep re-boarding to refuel indefinitely. That would stop you using this to mine science from Minmus for free, but wouldn't prevent doing the one (or maybe two) bounces.

IDK, I like how in ksp, EVA is easy, and you don't have to worry about that.

If they did do that, I'd hope the amount of monopropellant needed is very small.

[tater]

I suggest making two jetpack options. An early tier one, and an optional late tier.

Starting Astronaut Complex: EVA, no pack, tethers

Tier 2: 100 m/s, low TWR

Tier 3: Current jetpack, but heavier and limited propellant. ^ is optional if you want to go light

i like this idea a lot, but I'd reduce its the dv for the 2d tier well below 100. MMU is about 25 m/s. I'd use the current version as tier 2, and make a more substantial version for tier 3. The tier 3 could include a deployable grabber, allowing the kerbal to manipulate things, so we gain a new capability.

It would be ideal if the larger MMU could only happen with an eva from a new airlock part. That way "normal" kerbals have the smaller suit, and you have to add the airlock part to get the grabber MMU.

Edited May 20, 2015 by tater

[Nansuchao]

I'll be glad to see some improvement on the realism of Kerbals, but while sometimes they die just walking or descending a ladder, I'm happy as they are...