Experience

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I understand you're not crazy about the status quo, I was just curious what kinds of skills would make you want to bring them along.

I've stated this several times: No Kerbal should be prohibited from basic mission functions like hitting the "t" key or repairing a wheel.  That is where the classes go wrong, IMO, by enforcing specialization of basic functionality into the pilot and engineer.

If you want to talk about advanced piloting skills and things like that for the pilot, sure, whatever, I have no use for and don't have to use them.  If you want to talk about mining bonuses, great, I have no use for and don't have to use them.  If someone wants to nerf the PID controller to make pilots somehow relevant, whatever, I already know how to mod that silliness out of the game.  The real sticking point for me is that the classes remove basic functionality to enforce a diverse crew while doing a poor job of it.  Making that enforced diversity better just means shoehorning the player into mission architecture instead of allowing them the freedom to explore spaceflight.  This is why I prefer a single "class" (Astronaut) that can earn skill specialties through whatever mechanic (experience, money, etc...).

[Wjolcz]

I'm with @regex on this one. The kerbal experience is just another thing limiting the gameplay (+dumb tech tree and randomly-generated contracts). I also really don't like how scientists and engineers boost stats, or whatever they do (I got frustrated with the career and never had a go to experience the full glory of this great feature). It's not Heroes of Might and Magic, or Final Fantasy to have a healer class in the crew.

Welding would be useful, actual science experiments would be great, but changing a flat tyre is not that hard. You don't need to go to Mars to do that.

[r4pt0r]

At least we shut down squads idea of "experienced pilots can get more thrust and isp out of their engines". Mining I don't care about accelerating through the dumb game mechanics, the engineer just means I timewarp less.

The career/xp system certainly needs refining or replacing, but I'd worry they would try to add the nonsense stat boosting again.

Edited August 13, 2016 by r4pt0r

[RocketSquid]

The best thing SQUAD could do would be to open the system to modders, and to allow it to be shut down as a difficulty option.

[Pthigrivi]

13 hours ago, Veeltch said:

I'm with @regex on this one. The kerbal experience is just another thing limiting the gameplay.

Isn't the gameplay its limiting just the ability to do complex missions with a single kerbal though? Do you guys have thoughts on ways around that or have you given up on kerbals being an interesting component of the game? Long term Id love to see a way in which you really think about individual kerbals and their careers and development. Perks, so long as they're fun and useful in the game without breaking anything seems like a great incentive, and Im not sure just paying to upgrade them really generates that sense of reward, yknow?

 

I understand the gripe about SAS. It's really just the ability to fly without a flight computer. The fact that you can pretty easily put a probe core on something seems to take care of this, especially if pilots get useful abilities after that.  If you look at the skills list I showed Regex fixing wheels and solar panels happens at level 1, which you can pretty much get your first trip to orbit. There could be other creative ways around this like the ability to pick which discipline you level up in each time. I just wouldn't get so bummed out about how things are now that we enter the "Just scrap everything" trap. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, RocketSquid said:

The best thing SQUAD could do would be to open the system to modders, and to allow it to be shut down as a difficulty option.

This. Though I think a clever modder COULD actually rework the system. One has already tweaked it.

[tater]

I agree with everything @regex says, above since I don't think AI kerbals will ever be a thing---and fully AI kerbals is the only reason for them to have "skills," honestly as "NPCs."

The whole skill paradigm is also flatly wrong in the same way the tech tree is flatly wrong. You don't send a mission to the Moon to gather rocks to study to show you how to build a spaceplane. By the same token, you don't send astronauts to the Moon so they can learn how to change a tire.

Piloting... the player is the pilot, 100% of the time. Pilot skill certainly helps make it easier once it can follow the maneuver node, because then you can pilot by setting up maneuvers, and it doesn't depend on your twitchy ability to hold the ship pointing at a hard to see (for my "meh" eyes) blue dot.

Unless they make it so kerbals can be set a task, and they can do it by themselves, skills make no sense at all. It's an artifact of thinking of career as a space program management game, when the career mode is nothing of the sort. In the real world, you manage staff. You find who has a skill set you need, and you turn them loose. KSP "management" literally has the boss standing behind every employee saying, "grab the mouse, move the cursor right about 2 cm, then click." For every, single task done by every employee. No AI employees, no skills needed.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by tater

[tater]

EDIT: Why take more than one astronaut, then? OK, let's think about this.

Add in that kerbals need rest.

The new commo system @RoverDude is working on might allow this concept. Kerbals each need maybe 2 hours a day rest.

Seems like the "local control" idea in the commo system could be stretched around this in some fashion, perhaps the number of crew affects the commo status as if it was a probe in partial communication? For a single crew, every X hours, the ship acts like a probe out of communication---the pilot is asleep. Maybe they could be tourists while asleep.

2 crew, and the craft might be under partial control some % of the time.

Once you have 3, then the craft is entirely local and can do anything all the time?

(not fleshed out, just a thought).

 

An RSS/RO mod version of this would have schedules for when the astronauts sleep, etc, to be super realistic. We want simple, no micromanaging crew schedules, just a simple concept that nods to the fact that more crew gives you more flexibility.

[Wjolcz]

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Isn't the gameplay its limiting just the ability to do complex missions with a single kerbal though?

No. Limiting is only fun to deal with (at least IMO) when you have a certain amount of parts, not when you can't do simple things, because apparently you need to go places to learn how to do them first.

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Do you guys have thoughts on ways around that or have you given up on kerbals being an interesting component of the game?

As regex said: one "Astronaut" class. Maybe it would be fun if we could give them certain tasks/abilities. For example we start with an Astronaut with a basic set of skills (flying and umm... something else perhaps? they are all trained pilots, I guess) and we train him/her to do certain things. One will fly, one will weld, one will look at those microbes/goo and study it. All that before leaving the atmosphere. That "Astronaut Complex" thing should allow for that instead of being just a naming slot machine.

 

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

...and Im not sure just paying to upgrade them really generates that sense of reward, yknow?

I don't mind paying for crew training. Better to send professionals than amateurs who haven't changed a wheel during their life time.

And I feel like SQUAD has a wrong idea of "sense of achievement". More like "this doesn't have to make sense because they are wacky kerbals and we don't have time/will to redo the whole system so better add moar features because it's a finished product".

4 hours ago, tater said:

The whole skill paradigm is also flatly wrong in the same way the tech tree is flatly wrong. You don't send a mission to the Moon to gather rocks to study to show you how to build a spaceplane. By the same token, you don't send astronauts to the Moon so they can learn how to change a tire.

Exactly. Does R&D really need that regolith sample to build me a better rocket engine?

Edited August 13, 2016 by Veeltch

[RocketSquid]

On 8/13/2016 at 3:07 PM, Veeltch said:

Exactly. Does R&D really need that regolith sample to build me a better rocket engine?

The way I've always seen it is that R&D is a scientific swap meet. We have lunar regolith data that they want, they have engine data that we want, so we trade.

[Wjolcz]

3 minutes ago, RocketSquid said:

The way I've always seen it is that R&D is a scientific swap meet. We have lunar regolith data that they want, they have engine data that we want, so we trade.

That's not how it should work though.

[RocketSquid]

Just now, Veeltch said:

That's not how it should work though.

I get that, but that is a discussion for another thread!!!

Like this one I just started:

 

[Pthigrivi]

On 8/13/2016 at 3:07 PM, Veeltch said:

As regex said: one "Astronaut" class. Maybe it would be fun if we could give them certain tasks/abilities. For example we start with an Astronaut with a basic set of skills (flying and umm... something else perhaps? they are all trained pilots, I guess) and we train him/her to do certain things. One will fly, one will weld, one will look at those microbes/goo and study it. All that before leaving the atmosphere. That "Astronaut Complex" thing should allow for that instead of being just a naming slot machine.

Sorry I've been crazy busy with work and hadn't been able to get back on this. This is sort of what I meant about the ability to cross-train. Its a question of how best for the player to be involved in individual kerbal development. Its a side issue, somewhat separate from the core of the game, but given that the game is about them it would be nice if they were important. There are a few things at stake, giving rewards that are worth working toward, encouraging players to do multi-kerbal missions, and having a system of development that is minimally intrusive for the player. I understand some people's pessimism but I do think the class based system is meant to be a framework capable of satisfying the latter two, and the third was meant to be fulfilled in time. Because kerbals have pre-assigned classes and experience is gained by doing what a player would be doing anyway--exploring space--leveling up kerbals happens more or less automatically. You don't, for instance, have to go in to each kerbal's profile and decide what perks to upgrade based on their development. The question here is whether its worth it that you could. There is still an intrusiveness in the system in that some kebals are permanently locked into certain roles, and that to level kerbals beyond the first few you have to send repeat missions to minmus and the mun. The latter could be solved if there were at least some mechanism to level-up kerbals in-flight. An easy way to deal with the former would be to have kerbals start out classless as you suggest, and then giving the player the ability to chose in which discipline to upgrade. Here would be an adapted skill tree:

Level 0 - Cadet

- SAS

- Repack chutes

- Collect Surface Sample

 

After which each new level earned could upgrade one of the following in order:

 

Pilot I

- Prograde, Antigrade

- Normal, Antinormal

- Radial in, Radial out

 

Pilot II

- Toward Target, Away from Target

- Toward Maneuver, Away from Maneuver

 

Pilot III

- Hold on Angle to Horizon

- Landing zone prediction

- Other Kerbals on board gain experience 10% faster (for the highest level pilot, and does not stack)

 

Pilot IV

- Maintain Velocity

- Conics factor drag (Aerobrake prediction)

- Other Kerbals on board gain experience 20% faster (for the highest level pilot, and does not stack)

 

Pilot V

- Hold velocity X, Y, and Z

- Execute suicide burn

- Other Kerbals on board gain experience 30% faster (for the highest level pilot, and does not stack)

 

or:

 

Engineer I

- Repair Wheels, Legs, Solar Panels

 

Engineer II

- Reassign action groups in flight

- Resource transfer

 

Engineer III

- Repair damaged or overheated engines

- Remaining Delta-V visible

 

Engineer IV

- Place Struts and Fuel lines in flight

- Maintain COM via fuel redistribution

 

Engineer V

- Place/Remove small Panels, Sensors,

Engines, RCS etc in flight

- Drag overlay toggleable in flight

 

or:

 

Scientist I

- EVA Report, Surface Sample +10%

 

Scientist II

- EVA Report, Surface Sample +20%

- Operate Science Lab

- Process Samples to 25% of total recovered value

 

Scientist III

- EVA Report, Surface Sample +30%

- Perform resource richness test on surface samples for ISRU

- Process Samples to 50% of total recovered value

- Take Core Sample from ground-scatter and Surface Features

- Increase Impactor sensor radius to 25km

 

Scientist IV

- EVA Report, Surface Sample +40%

- Load Samples into Materials Bay from Science Lab

- Process data to 75% of total recovered value

- Increase Impactor sensor radius to 50km

 

Scientist V

- EVA Report, Surface Sample +50%

- Process Samples to 100% of total recovered value

- Increase Impactor sensor radius to 100km
 

So with 4 levels for instance you could have Pilot I, Scientist I, and Engineer II, or you could just have a level 4 pilot. Requiring players to go in and apply these bonuses manually would still require some UI but I think it would be worth it to give us a sense of control and some flexibility toward different playstyles. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[pandaman]

@Pthigrivi,. Your post above is along the same lines I was thinking may be a workable system.

Edit....     Oops, hit submit by accident.... 

I'd thought of listing the specific individual tasks and then grouping them together into 'sets' of similar tasks for each level, but it would end up broadly similar to what you have.

One thing I think would be quite important is the ability to train your crews up in preparation for a mission.  That's what happens IRL, astronauts spend months learning skills they will need for their next flight.  That would essentially take funds and ideally time too.

It may also be a possibility to separate 'skills' and 'experience'.  Skills being what you learn in the form of formal training and experience you gain from doing missions etc, and which could enhance some skills.  I'm not sure exactly how it would work or if it would be worth the extra effort though.

As you rightly said, whatever the system it has to be simple to operate to avoid it being lots of micromanagement chores.

Edited August 28, 2016 by pandaman
Clumsy with submit button

[Wjolcz]

Instead of going places to level up kerbals I'd rather give them their own abilities before the flight. The ones created by SQUAD are dumb. Not only the order kerbals get those skills, but also the skills themselves. The way they lock certain abilities just for the sake of it seems like lazy programming.

-How do we implement this whole KXP thing?
-Just take away the things they can already do in sandbox and make them grind to unlock them again.
-Excellent idea!

It shouldn't matter where you land. It's the same problem we have in career right now: go places to progress. The problem is some people don't want to play SQUAD tells them to. Science points, unlocking more skills and stats boosts shouldn't be the main reason to explore the solar system. It should either be actual science or the sense of achievement.

The current concepts of KXP, career and science-to-tech mechanics were wrong from the start. Not because they are not balaned, but because they simply won't ever work properly.

[Pthigrivi]

I know this is a bone for people and I know in real life you don't send astronauts up into space without training but getting the reward after you go do the thing is kind of how games work. In Zelda or Elder scrolls or any game they don't give you all the weapons up front, you have to go get them. Good progression is about giving players the tools to get what they need in time for them to be useful, not just handing them over. I agree there should be some adjustments to the way things work but pulling exploration out of experience removes a pretty important incentive process.

[Wjolcz]

On 29.08.2016 at 8:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

I know this is a bone for people and I know in real life you don't send astronauts up into space without training but getting the reward after you go do the thing is kind of how games work. In Zelda or Elder scrolls or any game they don't give you all the weapons up front, you have to go get them. Good progression is about giving players the tools to get what they need in time for them to be useful, not just handing them over. I agree there should be some adjustments to the way things work but pulling exploration out of experience removes a pretty important incentive process.

Why instead of forcing people to explore give them the choice if they want to do so?

"Yeah, I think unlocking better and more things is totally cool and how about more tweaks".

But to be honest, I don't actually care anymore. This thread will only result in SQUAD applying more tweaks. The same way they did before. And we should be thankful we have that mess of a career, because apparently this is what a finished product looks like.

[monstah]

On 29/08/2016 at 3:35 PM, Pthigrivi said:

In Zelda or Elder scrolls or any game they don't give you all the weapons up front, you have to go get them. Good progression is about giving players the tools to get what they need in time for them to be useful

...which means giving now the tools they will use later, not the ones they just needed. Zelda either gives you the weapon to kill the next boss after killing this one, or the weapon needed to get to this boss before actually getting there. KSP gives you the tool to do what you just achieved, only properly this time (proper aerodynamics, proper ship control, landing gear instead of whatever you slapped down there...).

[Pthigrivi]

13 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Why instead of forcing people to explore give them the choice if they want to do so?

Because sending kerbals out to explore space is the heart of what KSP is about. Probes are important and planes are a lot of fun but at the end of the day building rockets and going places has always been the soul of this game. It seems completely sensible to reward players for doing it. I wouldn't get so down. No one is saying career is perfect. For a small company Squad has made a ton of progress on what is on the back end a hugely complicated game. There's still a lot that can be done to make it better. Its not just about tweaks, its about identifying incisive changes that fix what's broken. I think for people like you who want to role play but don't necessarily want all the hangups of leveling kerbals and unlocking parts the best thing squad could do would simply be to unlock the science archives in Sandbox. Alternatively, yeah, you can edit your save, or if you're finding grind a problem just crank up science rewards. If you think the thing is broken there's no need to feel prideful about playing on hard mode. 

2 minutes ago, monstah said:

...which means giving now the tools they will use later, not the ones they just needed. Zelda either gives you the weapon to kill the next boss after killing this one, or the weapon needed to get to this boss before actually getting there. KSP gives you the tool to do what you just achieved, only properly this time (proper aerodynamics, proper ship control, landing gear instead of whatever you slapped down there...).

I don't know I've just never really had a problem unlocking things like landing legs before I needed them. You can pretty easily fly like 3-5 missions and have everything you need to get to minmus and back. After a few missions there, a few missions to the Mun a small station or some clever probes and you can unlock the entire tree. Like I said to Veeltch, if thats just too much grind for you just up the science rewards, right? There's no right way to have fun.

[Corona688]

On 12/15/2015 at 0:22 AM, MKI said:

Pilots are pretty set, with the new additions to "nerf" probes in the future their usage should be fine as is.

Do you mean the communication range thing, or something else?

Quote

Engineers, these guys need the most work. Personally I find them useless unless something breaks.

They are indispensable if your game revolves around mining, but they don't open up options, they're just a status effect.

Repacking parachutes isn't generally useful.  It's handy for a few niche things but usually a parachute doesn't get used twice.

Pilot gives you more options in flight.  Scientist gives you more ways to use instruments.  Engineer is just a luck charm you haul along to make mining happen faster.

Perhaps an engineer aboard should be required to be able to transfer fuel from tank to tank.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Corona688

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Corona688 said:

Perhaps an engineer aboard should be required to be able to transfer fuel from tank to tank.

Might make a good level 1 perk, but its a pretty basic ability so really should also be enabled by most probe cores as well. I feel like the real game-changer for Engineers will be some kind of stock KAS.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Pthigrivi