Am I alone in thinking that the Kerbals themselves can be a bit overrated?

[Kerbart]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Yeah I would rather not see them exaggerated as morons as well. Also, if you are piloting a craft and steer to the right and your body gets pulled to the left from centrifugal forces think about the body mechanics. Your body goes left while your hands go right? Just doesn't work... Kerbals shouldn't act like ragdolls while piloting...

They don't have to be morons but it's not unreasonable for them not to be geniuses either; those are the ones that design and build the ships and stay home.

I expect Kerbal crew to be over enthusiastic and perhaps a bit over confident in their abilities, pushing buttons they shouldn't be pushing and getting into situations they should not have gotten into.

More like Doc Emmet Brown from "Back to the Future" than Albert Einstein, so to say.

[Lewie]

Just now, Kerbart said:

More like Doc Emmet Brown from "Back to the Future" than Albert Einstein, so to say.

Bingo!

[Spaceman.Spiff]

I really think that the Kerbals provide a sort of "human" aspect to the game. Probes are great for getting science, but at the same time, it's much cooler to land a Kerbal than it is a dinky probe. In addition, I don't really mind if I lose a probe, even if it's fairly expensive, because I can just launch another. However, if I launch Jeb and mechanical failures  my noobiness results in his untimely demise (RIP), I feel reeeeeally bad. He probably had people on the ground who were awaiting his safe return when they learned that he had crashed. It's not possible for me to empathize with a probe in the same way. I'm not going to name my flagship Interplanetary vessel the "Mun-03", I'm going to call the incredibly advanced and historical vessel, the "Jebediah". 

TL; DR

Kerbal are like people; I want them to be safe and not get hurt. 

[Cyne]

Knowing that you're launching someone  and not just something is much more fun, and it also makes you try to be more careful, and Kerbals are going to be a important part of gameplay in KSP2 since it's all about colonization . And it's fun to watch the lil beans scream.

[Guest]

Having serious and professional astronauts instead of Kerbals would create a dissonance between the player and the game when the player makes a mistake.

Kerbal goofiness is crucial to make sure the player understands that a rocket exploding is something expected and to learn from, a necessary milestone of the game, not a game over screen.

[mcwaffles2003]

13 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Having serious and professional astronauts instead of Kerbals would create a dissonance between the player and the game when the player makes a mistake.

Kerbal goofiness is crucial to make sure the player understands that a rocket exploding is something expected and to learn from, a necessary milestone of the game, not a game over screen.

If this is in regards to leaning into your turn, I can't agree that would be an act of professionalism so much as a natural reaction. None of us, I assume, is a professional race car driver yet I believe everyone here while driving a car leans into their turns as natural instinct, like swinging opposite arms in unison with our legs as we walk. Goofiness is crucial to their character, but plainly unnatural motion which mimics a dead body would cause more dissonance.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

57 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If this is in regards to leaning into your turn, I can't agree that would be an act of professionalism so much as a natural reaction. None of us, I assume, is a professional race car driver yet I believe everyone here while driving a car leans into their turns as natural instinct, like swinging opposite arms in unison with our legs as we walk. Goofiness is crucial to their character, but plainly unnatural motion which mimics a dead body would cause more dissonance.

I agree that they need more lifelike physics and motion, but perhaps the animation could be changed so that as they level up (and become a more experienced pilot/astronaut) they would "resist the Gs" better than brand new ones. That way you have newbie pilots sloshing around while the 5-star pilots would be able to maintain some composure.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If this is in regards to leaning into your turn

No it's not, it's about the role Kerbals play in the game, I don't think a small and irrelevant error in an animation is even worth a mention, let alone a full debate over it.

Engine nozzles being small for vacuum engines and bigger for sea level ones is a way bigger error (by several orders of magnitude) and nobody cares.

Goofiness is crucial for Kerbal as a game, and Kerbals are the way to put that goofiness into it.

[Spaceman.Spiff]

 

11 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Goofiness is crucial for Kerbal as a game, and Kerbals are the way to put that goofiness into it.

The goofiness of the Kerbals is really what makes the game fun (for me). So I don't really mind some of the technical inaccuracies.

[The Aziz]

I don't know, if I'm strapped to my seat with a seatbelt, I don't really lean anywhere, except maybe moving my head (let alone racing drivers with their 6 point harnesses). With that said, I think, even if the animation would be inverted, that's still A LOT of free movement for a seat in a rocket. Which deals with much higher Gs than a car.

[quazarz]

I used to avoid the game when I thought it was *more* focused on the Kerbals. But now I am playing, and I really like them for their character and also their utility. I play career mode and I have something like 60 kerbonauts enlisted, all but 5 of which are living all over the kerbin system, mostly in surface or orbital stations. I think it's a great feature that they don't require life support, I know people like to mod that in but having the kerbals living inside the equipment makes it feel like there's more purpose to it all. Being able to EVA and manipulate the environment is big, and utilizing the different specialties gives me a reason to have them stationed around where they may be useful in the future. I voted 3.5.

Edited January 4, 2021 by quazarz

[Nansuchao]

Take Simple Rockets. Beautiful game, easy to play and with many things that a lot of people would like to see in KSP. But it lacks an interactive crew and this makes the game much less enjoyable than KSP.

[Dr. Kerbal]

I voted 5 because I bought KSP to play with rocket and "kerbals".

[mcwaffles2003]

2 hours ago, Nansuchao said:

Take Simple Rockets. Beautiful game, easy to play and with many things that a lot of people would like to see in KSP. But it lacks an interactive crew and this makes the game much less enjoyable than KSP.

Is that what you think make simple rockets unappealing? To me it was the lack of a variety of parts, the over simplicity of the  simulation (doesn't really bother with aerodynamics much), the lack of direction or a career mode, the planets are all very low res, no implementation of scientific probes, very little nuance in mechanics (no communications systems, no planes, etc.), I feel like I could go on and on with what this game is missing and I don't think its the lack of vibrant and silly characters is its one big flaw

Edited January 5, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[Multivac]

To me, KSP is above all an example of a beautiful balance between "serious" realistic simulation gameplay, and light-hearted, cute, "fun" gameplay. Kerbals, to me, are kind of a symbol of that balance. They are astronauts, they pass out from G-forces, they provide useful skills, they gain experience, and in the game's "story," they are a civilization working hard to try and reach space. They are also ridiculous, funny, and adorable, just smart enough to (supposedly) put rockets together, but a bit too silly to be able to do it safely.

They are perfect.

To me, a game without Kerbals could still be an interesting space travel sim, but it would no longer be the game I know and love as Kerbal Space Program.

As a tangent, I think the game *would* benefit from expanding on the Kerbal population a bit. I don't need or want KSP2 to turn into some sort of in-depth "Kerbal civilization simulator," but I do think the game would benefit from having, say, a few Kerbal cities and/or other civilian locations scattered around the planet. It would help make the game's world feel more "alive" and "real," and would make exploring around the planet's surface (and observing the planet from low orbit) more interesting. I think that would add enough to the gameplay experience to be a worthwhile addition.

[mcwaffles2003]

On 1/4/2021 at 11:51 AM, Master39 said:

Engine nozzles being small for vacuum engines and bigger for sea level ones is a way bigger error (by several orders of magnitude) and nobody cares.

It always did bug me how compact the terrier is...

[klesh]

2.5 for me.  I mostly enjoy unmanned missions, and when I do bring a Kerbal I more often than not wish they were human (and no, not human colored Kerbal shapes), and usually reduce the visible portraits. That being said, when a mishap occurs or the character falls down on the planet's surface, I do get a chuckle out of the hapless green guys.  They almost make player mistakes and even bugs in the game more lighthearted and fun and help remind me to have fun in life and stop being a jerk.  I've been working on that; it's going pretty good.

[LittleBitMore]

ah yes, the hit game Space Program 2.

In all seriousness, removing Kerbals would change the game entirely to be a Simple Rockets 2 or Orbiter clone. Kerbals keep the game unique.

[mcwaffles2003]

I get the feeling that some feel this thread is suggesting the removal of kerbals from the game.... it is not. No where in here have I suggested removing the kerbals, but instead argue that they are not the single greatest part of the game.

 

The thread reads : "the Kerbals themselves can be a bit overrated"

not : "should kerbals be removed from the game"

 

[LittleBitMore]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I get the feeling that some feel this thread is suggesting the removal of kerbals from the game.... it is not. No where in here have I suggested removing the kerbals, but instead argue that they are not the single greatest part of the game.

 

The thread reads : "the Kerbals themselves can be a bit overrated"

not : "should kerbals be removed from the game"

 

I see where you're coming from, but the poll describes one's preference on whether kerbals can be removed. I'd 100% say my answer is a 5, and I'm surprised so many people here are alright with it being that low of numbers.

[mcwaffles2003]

28 minutes ago, LittleBitMore said:

I see where you're coming from, but the poll describes one's preference on whether kerbals can be removed. I'd 100% say my answer is a 5, and I'm surprised so many people here are alright with it being that low of numbers.

The only option that might suggest their removal is 1.

I actually added 1 and 5 as intentional extremes and figured I would see a skewed bell graph, to say the game would be "utterly worthless" without kerbals in the game seems insane to me, this game has a lot of value in it aside from simply the kerbals themselves.

 

[Nansuchao]

On 1/5/2021 at 6:13 PM, mcwaffles2003 said:

Is that what you think make simple rockets unappealing? To me it was the lack of a variety of parts, the over simplicity of the  simulation (doesn't really bother with aerodynamics much), the lack of direction or a career mode, the planets are all very low res, no implementation of scientific probes, very little nuance in mechanics (no communications systems, no planes, etc.), I feel like I could go on and on with what this game is missing and I don't think its the lack of vibrant and silly characters is its one big flaw

KSP in his early stages was even worse, but it already had a brilliant and active community and many many mods that tried to improve the game.

[Guest]

On 1/4/2021 at 2:37 PM, Master39 said:

Kerbal goofiness is crucial to make sure the player understands that a rocket exploding is something expected and to learn from, a necessary milestone of the game, not a game over screen.

A former colleague used to work for Roskosmos, testing spaceship parts. The first time a rocket exploded on her she was extremely upset. An older colleague reassured her, “Don’t be sad, it is in the nature of rockets to explode sometimes.”

[hypervelocity]

I voted 1 as I would remove them from the game instantly & replace them with human models if I could/knew how to. It also estranges me how come there is no mod changing that (I think I read somewhere that's virtually inapplicable given how the game is constructed/coded).

For context, I am interested in realism and have converted KSP into the most realistic simulator I could via mods (RSS, RO, RP-1, Principia, etc.)

EDIT: and I now see my opinion is highly unpopular, being only shared with only 2 other forum members... well, the story of my life right there, liking things no one else likes and disliking whats loved by the vast majority... hey, what can you do!

Edited January 8, 2021 by hypervelocity

[probe137]

The game is literally named after them. Removing Kerbals from KSP would just like removing crafting from Minecraft. It would remove something necessary for progression, and remove part of the title. Also, imagine how many players would stop playing.

Edited January 14, 2021 by probe137