Astronaut Salary

[More Boosters]

This is pretty straightforward, so maybe this could be an option?

And on an unrelated note can someone please tell me how I'm going to activate physics time warp in vacuum? Holding alt and pressing the time warp buttons don't work.

[nohelmet]

it's alt-. to speed up, alt-, to slow down.

[pandaman]

I think a salary is a better solution than the current one off payment to hire, Kerbals aren't bought like slaves (well OK, they are in the current system). And they should get a raise for each star they gain too.

[theJesuit]

Yea, but would need to be toggle-able. What happens when kerbals are on their way to Duna and the stop being paid?

This would be a good thing to add if and when some form of life support is integrated into the game. Again I assume this will be toggle-able.

Peace.

[Tex_NL]

Paying upkeep for your Kerbals could possible result in people NOT wanting to use them and use probes instead. There are numerous threads on how to make Kerbals more useful in order to encourage people to use them.

Both ideas are absolutely valid but are highly contradictory.

[More Boosters]

Paying upkeep for your Kerbals could possible result in people NOT wanting to use them and use probes instead. There are numerous threads on how to make Kerbals more useful in order to encourage people to use them.

Both ideas are absolutely valid but are highly contradictory.

Well it would be optional. Wouldn't mind it not being in any of the default modes either for those who want to play Hard more as it is or something.

[samstarman5]

If you want an option, you can always increase your incoming funds to allow for salaries while having the funds you want for other stuff.

[More Boosters]

If you want an option, you can always increase your incoming funds to allow for salaries while having the funds you want for other stuff.

Yeah but I would rather have this as an optional in game mechanic instead of make believe.

[Brofessional]

Kerbals don't need a salary, they work for make benefit of glorious motherland. (and snacks)

[TMS]

This sort of idea would work if the game were based on income and expenditure within a given time period (grants, overheads, wages, tech sales, etc), a bit like the "tycoon" game that was originally alluded to. It has to have other time-based mechanics that compete against it to make it a meaningful aspect of the game.

Unfortunately, Squad have stated that they don't have the imagination to balance time-based mechanics in the game (read: "timewarp makes it meaningless"), so I'm afraid you're stuck with the mechanic of rescuing randomly generated crew as a means of avoiding paying exponential hiring prices.

Pretty sure this belongs in suggestions, though.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Salary is paid in snacks, and snacks are for free on Kerbin

I cant imagine that anyone wants to grind contracts only to pay the check for the 3 guys currently on their 3 year trip to Jool and back.

Also, Kerbals are for me more like Soldiers only that they are fighting for Science.

Edited November 8, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[RocketPropelledGiraffe]

Well, soldiers also have to be paid. They are more like slaves for science...

Anyway, I agree with you - why would I ever send a manned mission anywhere when I have to do a lot of boring contracts just to pay the Kerbals. The result would be to only send probes in career, it's easier anyway and the science amount is still plenty to complete the tech tree. Does not sound like a very desirable result to me.

[Joonatan1998]

+1

Kerbals are basically slaves now.

Slavery is bad.

[BlueCanary]

Paying upkeep for your Kerbals could possible result in people NOT wanting to use them and use probes instead. There are numerous threads on how to make Kerbals more useful in order to encourage people to use them.

Both ideas are absolutely valid but are highly contradictory.

What if you had to pay salary for mission control operators controlling probes too? Like an amount every second a probe is in focus (since they wouldn't have to do anything in timewarp). It could be more than the astronaut salary (since it'd be more people involved) but unlike the astronaut salary it wouldn't be all the time, so it'd just about balance out.

[tseitsei]

I prefer keeping this as a spaceflight/exploration game rather than another tycoon game.

There are already plenty of those tycoon games if you like managing money and resources...

Ksp should be about building and flying spaceships imo

[Wjolcz]

OK, first of all this thread feels more like a feature discussion thread, so someone move it to S&DD maybe?

Second of all, kerbals need to do something probes can't. I'm thinking KIS/KAS here. Probes don't have hands. If they could weld and detach things it would be worth paying them monthly.

There are of course many other ways specific classes could be improved, but those green men really need to show their overall usefulness first.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Veeltch

[Graveworks]

Given that you can launch a Mun mission for less than the cost of hiring a Kerbonaut, I like to assume that the quoted price is a lump sum payment into a trust fund that covers their salary, pension and survivor benefit plan. And snacks.

[More Boosters]

I prefer keeping this as a spaceflight/exploration game rather than another tycoon game.

There are already plenty of those tycoon games if you like managing money and resources...

Ksp should be about building and flying spaceships imo

You're entitled to your opinion but it is only binding for you. There is the science/sandbox mode, and even for career this would be completely optional. You can't just tell me to go play another game. It's selfish to say that we can't have this as an option, if you don't want to use it, don't use it.

OK, first of all this thread feels more like a feature discussion thread, so someone move it to S&DD maybe?

Second of all, kerbals need to do something probes can't. I'm thinking KIS/KAS here. Probes don't have hands. If they could weld and detach things it would be worth paying them monthly.

There are of course many other ways specific classes could be improved, but those green men really need to show their overall usefulness first.

Probes can't improve ISRU efficiency or restore experiments. It's like real life, you keep your astronauts for stations and flagship missions and most spacecraft are unmanned. Pilots do need a better role though, and for that I have a thread on the suggestions and development subforum about making them commanders.

[Godot]

You want your Kerbonauts to get paid?

Why?

They already get all the fame, as well as the chance to visit other planets and moons.

They should pay the KSA for this chance ... not the other way round

[Wjolcz]

.

Probes can't improve ISRU efficiency or restore experiments. It's like real life, you keep your astronauts for stations and flagship missions and most spacecraft are unmanned. Pilots do need a better role though, and for that I have a thread on the suggestions and development subforum about making them commanders.

That's still not as much as they could do with KIS and KAS implemented.

[JPLRepo]

There are plans to put salaries into Roster Manager mod.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111806-WIP-Roster-Manager

[tseitsei]

You're entitled to your opinion but it is only binding for you. There is the science/sandbox mode, and even for career this would be completely optional. You can't just tell me to go play another game. It's selfish to say that we can't have this as an option, if you don't want to use it, don't use it.

Calm down man. As I said it was just my opinion... No need to calm me selfish because of that.

Let me explain you why I think "if you dont like it dont use it" is not a good logic IMO.

Lets say a new horribly overpowered engines are added to the game. Something like 10000kN thrust 50000s isp 1t mass and 1000kerbucks price for example. Would you like that? Would that be just fine im your opinion? I think yiu wouldnt like that. I sure as hell wouldnt like that! But by your logic if you dont like them you can just choose not to use them... And by continuing that even further literally ANYTHING can be added to the game no matter how stupid as long as you add a button to turn it off... IMO that is not a good logic.

Also a side point is that developing any new feature takes squads time. Time that they could use to develop some (imo) better and more important things.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that horribleopengines and kerbal salaries are equally bad. I'm just trying to show you why "if you dont like it dont use it" is not a good logic...

[sal_vager]

Suggestions go in Suggestions and Development discussion, not General Discussion, this should be common knowledge to anyone with over 100 posts to their profile.

Also please keep this thread civil.

[More Boosters]

Calm down man. As I said it was just my opinion... No need to calm me selfish because of that.

Let me explain you why I think "if you dont like it dont use it" is not a good logic IMO.

Lets say a new horribly overpowered engines are added to the game. Something like 10000kN thrust 50000s isp 1t mass and 1000kerbucks price for example. Would you like that? Would that be just fine im your opinion? I think yiu wouldnt like that. I sure as hell wouldnt like that! But by your logic if you dont like them you can just choose not to use them... And by continuing that even further literally ANYTHING can be added to the game no matter how stupid as long as you add a button to turn it off... IMO that is not a good logic.

Also a side point is that developing any new feature takes squads time. Time that they could use to develop some (imo) better and more important things.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that horribleopengines and kerbal salaries are equally bad. I'm just trying to show you why "if you dont like it dont use it" is not a good logic...

I am calm but you're trying your best to change that. Your clichêd analogy (OP part that's cheap so just don't use it) doesn't help your position, nor does it make any sense in this context. A sensible and completely optional gameplay option can't be compared to something that breaks gameplay by making it too easy/too hard/too *insert something it shouldn't be* even if it is to be optional or not.

I'm not responsible for Squad's time management. They're clearly working on improving the game, and I, as a customer, am telling them about a feature I would like to see, something I consider would be an improvement to the game. Your disclaimer means diddly squat when the only difference between a feature like this and one that is already in the game is that... It's not in the game yet. Compression heating for example is in the game and it can be turned off completely. It's a sensible gameplay option but you are not forced to use it. "If you don't like it don't use it" is not valid reasoning, but it also needn't be invoked here as this really is no different to heating or money in career mode. And if you're going to say that heating and aerodynamic effects are an integral part of real life space programs... Well so are astronaut salaries.

Edit for mod ninja:

Also please keep this thread civil.

The thread is civil, no problem here.

[tseitsei]

I am calm but you're trying your best to change that. Your clichêd analogy (OP part that's cheap so just don't use it) doesn't help your position, nor does it make any sense in this context. A sensible and completely optional gameplay option can't be compared to something that breaks gameplay by making it too easy/too hard/too *insert something it shouldn't be* even if it is to be optional or not.

Why is using re-entry heat or kerbal salary any more or less optional than using any part(s) you dont like? That op part doesnt make game too easy/hard/whatever for you if you choose not to use it...

I'm not responsible for Squad's time management. They're clearly working on improving the game, and I, as a customer, am telling them about a feature I would like to see, something I consider would be an improvement to the game.

Yes and I as a customer am telling my opinion that differs from yours. That I dont consider this feature to be an improvement and I think that squad should use its time for other features instead. (I wont start talking about what features I would like. That's a discussion for another thread).

Compression heating for example is in the game and it can be turned off completely. It's a sensible gameplay option but you are not forced to use it. "If you don't like it don't use it" is not valid reasoning, but it also needn't be invoked here as this really is no different to heating or money in career mode. And if you're going to say that heating and aerodynamic effects are an integral part of real life space programs... Well so are astronaut salaries.

The key difference here is that heating and aerodynamics are important aspects when FLYING AND DESIGNING a spacecraft.

Salary is important while FINANCIALLY MANAGING SPACEPROGRAM.

I like the flying and designing aspect of the game so I would like to see new features and upgrades on that.

You obviously also like the financial tycoon type aspect of the game and would like to see improvements there.

It's ok and understandable BUT dont call me selfish just because I want different features to be implemented in the game. From my point of view you are just as selfish. You want squad to use their time on some salary stuff instead of the upgrades I would like. Just as I want squad to use their time on stuff I would like to see instead of salary or other financial side stuff...