Kerbals selected as crew for craft with "Impactor" in name sneak off craft at launch

[darthgently]

The idea is a few humorous and atypical easter eggs like this would be interesting.  Easter eggs that aren't location specific, but situational, so harder to find but make sense in some way.  It would add some "grit" to the game in that it would add unexpected detail. 

Maybe if their courage and stupidity are both near max they would stay aboard.  Or maybe just a general wariness of crew, like avoiding a craft with no parachutes or heat shields so you have to drag them into the craft 2 or 3 times before they stick.  Of course they'd have a terrified look on their face if you insisted.  Behavior like this could be what reminds you to put the chutes on and check your staging.  Idk, just unbaked thoughts at this point I suppose

Edited August 26, 2022 by darthgently

[Ember12]

This would be awesome and adorable, as long as it was easy to figure out why.

[Bej Kerman]

Gameplay over lore and cosmetics (e.g. in KSP 2 black rockets probably won't heat quicker than white ones, because that would be annoying) - I feel like easter eggs are no exception to that rule. This specific idea would be indistinguishable from a crew-related bug at first glance as well as be somewhat irritating for those who know it's an egg.  Another stop at the VAB to fix a problem caused by an easter egg? Sorry, no thanks; I prefer being able to launch straight away with the picked crew configuration.

I think this would work better if it only just made Kerbonauts more likely to show negative expressions. Even then, it should have less to do with the name and more to do with problems identified by the game (e.g. at launch the control part will think it is facing down/sideways).

[The Aziz]

How would they know if a craft needs chutes and/or heatshield? Engineers report in KSP1 often gets confused, pointing out at seemingly critical errors in design like lack of landing gear or electric charge, when neither is required for current craft.

[darthgently]

15 hours ago, The Aziz said:

How would they know if a craft needs chutes and/or heatshield? Engineers report in KSP1 often gets confused, pointing out at seemingly critical errors in design like lack of landing gear or electric charge, when neither is required for current craft.

You are welcome to finish baking the admittedly half baked thought.   But now that you mention it, if it forced a fix of the engineer report code then it would be a double win.  Given I was addressing KSP2 suggestions I'm not sure how much the current problems with KSP apply.

That said, if the craft has "Impactor" in the name, well, I know wouldn't want to get on it.

Edited August 27, 2022 by darthgently

[The Aziz]

In any case, the scaredy Kerbals would have to somehow know beforehand how the spacecraft is going to end. Certain name? I can call my impactor ship "bombastic 5000" and that tells them nothing. Certain part on board? It could serve as detachable probe with no effect on the rest of the ship. There's really no way of predicting that for certain. In every other case it would quickly become an annoyance.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

In any case, the scaredy Kerbals would have to somehow know beforehand how the spacecraft is going to end. Certain name? I can call my impactor ship "bombastic 5000" and that tells them nothing. Certain part on board? It could serve as detachable probe with no effect on the rest of the ship. There's really no way of predicting that for certain. In every other case it would quickly become an annoyance.

You are really overthinking this. 

[Superfluous J]

2 minutes ago, darthgently said:

You are really overthinking this. 

Not really. If this was in the lounge, sure, but this is in the Suggestions forum so is a suggestion, and should be treated like one.

It'd be a cute Easter egg once, then an annoyance forever after, and one of the nuts the KSP1 team gave up trying to crack was "determine what this ship needs to work correctly." I don't see that changing for KSP2 (but I'd be ecstatic if it did)

[t_v]

I see this as a little, very easily avoidable, easter egg. I do really hope that KSP 2 has easter eggs, they almost always enhance the character of a game. They also don't have to be well constructed as long as they are hidden or unobtrusive. I don't care that

Spoiler

the whale and pot of petunias on Laythe

doesn't fit within the rest of the gameplay or really make sense, it is just a fun detail that makes the game have a little more personality

[darthgently]

It was an idea for a general approach with apparently regrettable off the cuff examples. I really didn't think it would cause a stir as long as I clearly started that I hadn't fully thought it out and that it was meant for humor. 

I definitely regret posting it now.  I will strive to be super serious from now on  

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, darthgently said:

It was an idea for a general approach with apparently regrettable off the cuff examples. I really didn't think it would cause a stir as long as I clearly started that I hadn't fully thought it out and that it was meant for humor. 

I definitely regret posting it now.  I will strive to be super serious from now on  

We're not asking you to be super serious nor are we shaming you, we're just telling you that an easter egg which obstructs normal play of the game isn't cute or fun. It's a completely fair thing to think - in practice, players would be more likely to think that they were hit with a bug. This'd probably cause spam in the bug tracker.

[darthgently]

2 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

We're not asking you to be super serious nor are we shaming you, we're just telling you that an easter egg which obstructs normal play of the game isn't cute or fun. It's a completely fair thing to think - in practice, players would be more likely to think that they were hit with a bug. This'd probably cause spam in the bug tracker.

My point is that I thought I was darn clear that I was talking about a *type* easter egg.  Yet another conversation that would never go this way in person.  Only on the internet..   Lighten up, Francises (movie reference)

[Bej Kerman]

3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I was talking about a *type* easter egg

I don't get what you mean.

[Deddly]

I think this idea would be pretty neat if it were handled well. For example, if you get a message pop up saying "Alnard and Kurt Kerman are hammering on the hatchway because it appears to be blocked by something."  Or "Bill just jumped out of the door because he is too terrified to fly with no parachutes." 

It could be done, but it seems more likely to be annoying if it happens because of a deliberate design choice. 

[Bej Kerman]

3 hours ago, Deddly said:

I think this idea would be pretty neat if it were handled well. For example, if you get a message pop up saying "Alnard and Kurt Kerman are hammering on the hatchway because it appears to be blocked by something."  Or "Bill just jumped out of the door because he is too terrified to fly with no parachutes." 

Maybe the whole thing could start and end at the popup. You get two buttons, one puts you at the launchpad with the Kerbals having being escorted to the vessel so that everything is the way you planned it to be, and the other sends you back to the VAB. Instead of being an easter egg, make it something new players can have enabled or disabled so they can go back to the VAB easily if the game spots a flaw in the craft (instead of having the engineer's reports tucked away in a button no-one uses, it's all in the dialog box). Just a way this idea could be used to somewhat improve newcomers' experiences instead of hindering everyone. The biggest flaw with that idea though is the fact the engineer's report cannot tell between deliberate design choices and flaws - human designs are often too complicated for a mere computer-guided checklist to suffice. Still, even then it'd just mean spending half a second more at a dialog box.