Kerbal stupidness affecting performance

[Tortoise]

I think the stupidity of the kerbals you hire, should effect the scientific value of EVA/Crew reports, slightly impair EVA control/ and etcetra.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[MKI]

I feel the Dev's will expand on Kerbal statics in the future. Why have stats at all and a hiring center if it doesn't matter game-play wise?

There's a lot more possibilities all depending on how much Kerbal stats affect gameplay. As you suggest impaired movement and scientific value changes all depending on kerbals could be interesting, but there would need to be many more balancing parameters to keep you from just using all the "smart" kerbals.

I for one feel they should impact the game somehow, but do not know how much or how little.

[arise257]

A friend and I mulled this idea before as well. We thought high-courage, low-stupidity kerbals might be better pilots and scientists, respectively, but cost more to hire. This would require contracts/currency/reputation to be complete, but essentially you'd start with pretty crappy astronauts. Only as your program gained reputation and money could you court better astronauts.

The gem of our idea is that each kerbal can gain courage, lose stupidity as you use them for certain things. For instance, if you had one dumb kerbal in a mobile processing lab, the more experiments he ran, the lower his stupidity would drop. Another example would be a weak-kneed pilot becoming better after performing multiple maneuvers or achieving various low and high orbits.

This would do three things:

1) Encourage thoughtful selection of individual kerbals based on mission requirements.

2) Encourage the development of individual kerbals based on goals within your space program.

3) Specialize the abilities and thus priorities of your space program over time, making balancing the types of kerbals you employ (and the type of missions you accept) a game unto itself.

We also thought it would be helpful/interesting to create a new class of kerbals: Engineers, with the same courage/stupidity metrics. High-courage engineers would speed the development of aerodynamic/propulsion/control parts. Low-stupidity engineers would speed the development of pods/structural/utility/science parts. The intensity of each metric would determine the speed at which their research completes and parts become available. So for instance, a low-courage/low-stupidity would go beast-mode on science parts, but hardly contribute to the development of new engines. When you conduct experiments and transmit or return results, the science points are divided among your engineers and their talents, resulting in varied progress towards the unlocking of new parts.

This would:

1) Add new value and gameplay dynamics to science research.

2) Specialize your space program based on science research and subsequent part acquisition.

3) Affect the scope of missions you can accept.

Sorry this was long, didn't mean to thread-jack, just wanted expand on the great point you raised.

[federally]

No thanks. I think is perfect the way it is where I get to pick Kerbals based on whether or not I like their name and the stats merely affect what faces they make.

Having to deal with picking the right one to pilot a ship would be irritating. The ship should succeed or fail based on my design and my flying. Not based on some arbitrary stat on my Kerbal.

[arise257]

Also, with my proposed idea, the incentive to keep kerbals alive and bring them home would be much higher. I'd like to see killing kerbals in space as hugely damaging to your program's reputation, along with a steep drop in future contract values for a few missions afterward.

[arise257]

<snip>The ship should succeed or fail based on my design and my flying. Not based on some arbitrary stat on my Kerbal.

Agreed. I think the base stat on a Kerbal with low courage is 0 (zero), with bonuses for higher courage. Something like SAS and RCS is at most 10% more responsive. Nothing to unbalance the game or radically alter designs, but something to give you a reason for using some Kerbals over others/hiring them in the first place.

[vger]

Trouble is, it would make more sense if you had to pick certain traits for certain tasks. But I can't see how cowardice or stupidity could be used advantageously.

[Javster]

Maybe if they've just come out of a spinning nightmare kapsule kontraption, they should walk weirdly or have bad Crew Reports

- - - Updated - - -

Trouble is, it would make more sense if you had to pick certain traits for certain tasks. But I can't see how cowardice or stupidity could be used advantageously.

Cowardice: staying safe?

[zeel]

The way I always hoped it would work is that you would get some fairly random Kerbals to start with, and each mission would allow them to "level up" skills. Kerbals with low stupidity would level up faster, and those with high stupidity would get smarter over time, while leveling slowly at first. Similarly courage would have some effect on performance.

By leveling up your crew they would gain new abilities. For instance you could get a Kerbal that would be able to process goo canister research more efficiently if you constantly use them to do that task (they get better at it). Or a kerbal that has flown many missions may gain the ability to handle simple piloting tasks like keeping the ship pointed at a node, or triggering a stage when the fuel in a certain tank runs out. OR perhaps you could have a kerbal gain skills to repair things, so they can not only fix tires but solar panels and struts as well.

I would also love to see them grouped into Science, engineering, and piloting. So only a pilot can fly a ship, only a scientist can be assigned to the space lab, and only an engineer can repair things.

As for why would you ever send a dumb kerbal on a mission? Well for one you might run out of smart ones and need to train a new guy, or perhaps you just need someone to keep an eye on the orbital module while the others land and take samples. Or you just need a *test pilot*.

[John FX]

I always thought things like the amount of science or the financial reward from a mission could be a way of having the stats affect the game but in a way that does not impact craft performance. Also limiting equipment to those trained to use it.

I like the idea that they get experience from missions and new abilities. You could have trainees that can have a speciality later. Rookies on their first mission could operate a limited equipment set and after that a kerbal could specialise to be able to use advanced equipment. A scientist would be able to use the onboard telescope or scanner etc. Pilot would be a specialisation allowing RCS use and so forth. You would have to pick your crew depending on the mission which would be cool. If all recruits started out the same level (zero) then you could still just pick the ones with names you like which is what I do. I`d like to still be able to pick my kerbals based on their silly names...

You could get 1 point of experience per day in space maybe?

[vger]

I always thought things like the amount of science or the financial reward from a mission could be a way of having the stats affect the game but in a way that does not impact craft performance. Also limiting equipment to those trained to use it.

I like the idea that they get experience from missions and new abilities. You could have trainees that can have a speciality later. Rookies on their first mission could operate a limited equipment set and after that a kerbal could specialise to be able to use advanced equipment. A scientist would be able to use the onboard telescope or scanner etc. Pilot would be a specialisation allowing RCS use and so forth. You would have to pick your crew depending on the mission which would be cool. If all recruits started out the same level (zero) then you could still just pick the ones with names you like which is what I do. I`d like to still be able to pick my kerbals based on their silly names...

You could get 1 point of experience per day in space maybe?

Another thing that 'might' be interesting, at least for me, though I could quickly see a lot of players getting annoyed with it, is the "Oh, crap, something broke" scenario that had nothing to do with skimming a lander across the surface of the Mun. I'm talking about he unpredictable Apollo 13 types of problems, things that can only be solved with a great deal of ingenuity and a level head.

Having Kerbals who are skilled in a certain locale might be interesting though. For instance, someone who has already visited the Mun, can get a bonus when extracting science from there on concurrent missions, or can operate the craft efficiently enough to save on fuel. Something like that.

And sending noobs up with an experienced Kerbonaut will help them learn faster.

Yeah, it's drifting into RPG territory with that, but a lot of us are role playing our space programs already, just to make things more interesting.

Edited April 20, 2014 by vger