Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[stevism]

science and money boosts are the only thing that should increase.

the rest is awful...

[Vanamonde]

The idea has always been that the Kerbals are piloting the ships. Why else would they have panels full of controls in front of them? You are telling them what to do, and they are doing it. You are playing the role of the Kerbals. This is not a new idea, and is in fact the reason Squad has always been opposed to the idea of making autopilots such as MechJeb part of the stock game.

Do you think every Apollo lander pilot used exactly the same amount of fuel while setting the LEM down?

Besides, guys, many of you are talking about this as if a poor Kerbal pilot will have trouble getting to Mun one-way in the same ship that a good pilot can make a round-trip to Tylo. What was actually said was,

Obviously, the performance boosting effects have to be quite subtle to not make things too easy...

[Lord Nihilus]

This is a bad idea. As stated by so many before me, and most likely by more after me, any change in thrust/fuel eff/heat etc is a very, very bad idea.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Well, basically anything that doesn't affect hardware performance would be better. Funds/rep/science gain or penalty or patch conic mod change or more things able to be done on EVA or anything that doesnt change how the vessel I built flies.

I wonder how mods like KER or MJ would handle this - would they take into account the absolute optimum thrust or the default crews thrust (I hate that I had to write that) or what?

Seriously bad idea, Squad. After 10 months of playing this game and supporting every change/improvement made, for the first time, I have to urge the devs to scrap this line of thinking. Make it so I get a bonus on mission completion or boosted rep gain upon vessel recovery or something.. don't make it so I can change an engines fuel flow simply by putting a certain kerbal in the cockpit. That is unrealistic/unbelievable and makes that craft mostly unusable to someone else without that exact same kerbal XP.

[Draft]

The idea has always been that the Kerbals are piloting the ships. Why else would they have panels full of controls in front of them? You are telling them what to do, and they are doing it. You are playing the role of the Kerbals. This is not a new idea, and is in fact the reason Squad has always been opposed to the idea of making autopilots such as MechJeb part of the stock game.

Except for when they've entertained the idea of training kerbals to fly missions on their own with an experience system.

Do you think every Apollo lander pilot used exactly the same amount of fuel while setting the LEM down?

Do you think every time a player lands they use the same amount of fuel? Do you think that One astronaut always uses exactly the same proportion less fuel than another one?

Besides, guys, many of you are talking about this as if a poor Kerbal pilot will have trouble getting to Mun one-way in the same ship that a good pilot can make a round-trip to Tylo. What was actually said was,

If it's minor enough to not make a difference there's no point to having it anyway. Claiming it won't be a big deal is a diversion.

[Xavven]

The idea has always been that the Kerbals are piloting the ships. Why else would they have panels full of controls in front of them? You are telling them what to do, and they are doing it. You are playing the role of the Kerbals. This is not a new idea, and is in fact the reason Squad has always been opposed to the idea of making autopilots such as MechJeb part of the stock game.

Do you think every Apollo lander pilot used exactly the same amount of fuel while setting the LEM down?

Besides, guys, many of you are talking about this as if a poor Kerbal pilot will have trouble getting to Mun one-way in the same ship that a good pilot can make a round-trip to Tylo. What was actually said was,

I think you do have a point. The closest analogy I can think of is a FPS where the bullet spread and recoil is affected by stats. Sure, the player has to aim with the mouse, but the character's stats, like experience handling firearms, proper stance, proper sighting, proper stock placement, etc. affects accuracy as well.

It's just that many of us (most of us from the looks of the poll so far) just don't want it. It's a matter of taste! Sometimes it's good to listen to your playerbase (not always, but sometimes it is!)

[BudgetHedgehog]

What was actually said was,

Obviously, the performance boosting effects have to be quite subtle to not make things too easy...

But why make something like this and then have to tune it down to not be "game-breaking"? Why not make it an obvious boost/nerf to rep/science gain etc? Or anything similar to the strategies - make it so certain kerbals increase contract gains or decrease launch costs or something?

If the tweaks are as subtle as Mu suggests then wow, my engine got upgraded from 310 vac Isp to 315. Excuse me while I go set up balloons and marching band to celebrate this "subtle but not too easy" increase.

[PDCWolf]

The idea has always been that the Kerbals are piloting the ships. Why else would they have panels full of controls in front of them? You are telling them what to do, and they are doing it. You are playing the role of the Kerbals. This is not a new idea, and is in fact the reason Squad has always been opposed to the idea of making autopilots such as MechJeb part of the stock game.

Do you think every Apollo lander pilot used exactly the same amount of fuel while setting the LEM down?

Besides, guys, many of you are talking about this as if a poor Kerbal pilot will have trouble getting to Mun one-way in the same ship that a good pilot can make a round-trip to Tylo. What was actually said was,

The problem with that example is that input is manual and given by the player, if it was automatic then it would be totally different, but for now it means that even if I fly the exact same pattern, my ship is going to behave differently. Different pilots used different amounts of fuel because their landings were totally different too, even if it's a book procedure, also landing sites were different from one another and thus having different fuel requirements (go land on the mun at a 9km high mountain and then inside a crater and tell me).

The rest is contradictory, either it makes a difference or said change is so small it makes the feature useless from the get go.

[asheft]

Do you think every Apollo lander pilot used exactly the same amount of fuel while setting the LEM down?

And not every player is going to use the same amount of fuel, because some players are better than others. Some players can always thrust in the right direction, and the right throttle setting, and thus save fuel by not accidentally overthrusting and starting to ascend (which I have personally done before), or overcorrecting their lateral velocity. It is the player that determines how much fuel is used to land.

Edit: Kind of what the poster above said...

[technicalfool]

Extra poll option added, if four pages in.

[federicoaa]

KSP isn't Skyrim, nor should it be.

Although it would be quite funny to scream FUS RO DAH to a ship XD

ON: I think we should see a dev post explaining in detail what they propose to do before reaching conclusions

[tater]

I'm fine with them actually flying (mechjeb minus the mech bit). I'm fine with their skill determining how well they do such automated tasks. I'm not at all fine with them changing the physics, at all. Unlike many, I think they should do autonomous tasks if you tell them to. If the player is forced to do all the piloting, then the player is the pilot. If the kerbals themselves can actually pilot, I am entirely open to how their skill is abstracted.

[Franklin]

I appreciate that Mike recognized how the impact of character levelling and party buffs could mess with the game, suggesting they should be subtle, but fails to grasp how it messes with the core mechanics of rocket design within the game since the beginning, and instead worries it could make the game too easy.

Like it being too easy to construct and pilot rockets with a Level 5 Warrior in our adventuring party was our primary concern with the experience system that's proposed.

[Franklin]

"There's no way that design is gonna make it to Duna. Your TWR is way too low and your dV is a mâ€â€"

[Level 20 Jeb Joins Party]

"Now we'll get to Duna."

[Franklin Uninstalls Game]

[FleetAdmiralJ]

I personally don't have a problem with Kerbals being able to fly a ship more efficiently, but I'm clearly in the pretty small minority in that view. I can see why some people would be against that but I'm rather surprised at the overwhelming retching at the idea.

Of course, if you can't alter part stats, then that pretty much means their entire idea for kerbal experience goes out the window because, you can have kerbals who increase science stats and then kerbals who do....????

"So here's my craft which will work perfectly in any save.. provided you have a kerbal of X experience so the thrust is boosted and a kerbal of experience Y which maximises the Isp".

This basically is completely opposite to Squads argument against procedural universes - every player should have the same experience every time.

But isn't what you are saying an example that different players experiences WOULD be the same. If you have X matched with Y and Z, then it'll work for everyone. We already have a game where different players can play the game in radically different ways. Depending on what things you choose in the admin building (if any), the process you have to go through to gain money or science or reputation may be completely different.

The thing is with that, the player is the pilot. The player is the one who may or may not choose the optimal ascent profile, or plans and executes his orbital transfers properly, or whatever. As the players skill and knowledge increases they fly more efficiently, the game doesn't need Jeb wearing Boots of +10 ISP to give that.

We're not talking about (at least I don't think we are) Kerbal abilities suddenly changing your course. We're talking about the difference between a kerbal flying right on the line and a kerbal, in theory, wobbling all over the place trying to stay on that line and thus wasting fuel. One isn't breaking physics, one is simply making a kerbal better or worse at the task they are doing, just like many other characters experience in other game.

And really, whose orbital transfers go perfectly anyway. I mean, sure sometimes. But I almost never get a burn - especially a long burn - right the first time anyway.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[BudgetHedgehog]

"There's no way that design is gonna make it to Duna. Your TWR is way too low and your dV is a mâ€â€"

[Level 20 Jeb Joins Party]

"Now we'll get to Duna."

[Franklin Uninstalls Game]

My thoughts in a nutshell, thank you.

[MartGonzo]

"So here's my craft which will work perfectly in any save.. provided you have a kerbal of X experience so the thrust is boosted and a kerbal of experience Y which maximises the Isp".

This basically is completely opposite to Squads argument against procedural universes - every player should have the same experience every time. A big part of KSP is the sharing of info, vessels and knowledge and to be able to create a vessel that only works provided you have certain XP (for want of a better word) goes against that.

"Oh hey newbie, you're looking for help getting to orbit? I'm afraid I can't help you - all my kerbals are sufficiently experienced to be able to cope with a vessel that won't work with your kerbals."

Not to mention that this gives no reason to use any other kerbals than the most experienced - "sorry Ferfel, you're not coming. You haven't been on enough mission to be able to make the LV-909 give 75 thrust instead of 50". Given that the game defaults to the first 3 kerbonauts upon launch, the vessel you build might be different to the vessel you launch, depending on how experienced the default 3 are (or however many fit in the pod etc).

Read any topic about being able to upgrade parts via Science or procedural planets/universes and then read Mu's devnotes. This is basically a complete 180 and I really hope Squad reconsiders. Sure, boost science, rep or funds gain or whatever but please don't change the way my ship actually works. It'd basically throw away anyone who uses standardised launchers as subassemblies as well as there's no guarantee they'd work the same across missions.

Please reconsider this, Squad.

Sums it up perfectly.

I hope someone from squad sees this and realises what a terrible idea experience affecting craft is.

finances and contracts sure, science ... maybe, but this will just detract from the game experience.

[hoojiwana]

Of course, if you can't alter part stats, then that pretty much means their entire idea for kerbal experience goes out the window because, you can have kerbals who increase science stats and then kerbals who do....????

The devs have mentioned wanting Kerbals to be able to fly their rockets without player input for a long time now, and that is almost certainly the end-goal of the KExp system. I don't get why they feel the need to tack on silly vessel-altering mechanics on top of that though, especially after the generally negative comments about the possibility of there being Strategies that did the same thing.

[Whirligig Girl]

Note: Pasted from Devnote thread.

Just thinking out loud here, I might copypasta this into the suggestions forum. Basically I'm imagining what the Kerbal Traits are and what skills they provide. I'd also kind of like to see a training bit in the Astronaut Complex for minor increase over time in Kerbal Skill level, or perhaps instant for a funds decrease. In my imagination, the Kerbal skill level for each trait increases and that increases how much effect their skill can have. Notice that all traits also have a downside that scales slower than upsides.

Scientist

*Skill can be increased by doing science. The lower the stupidity, the quicker this Trait increases.

+ xxx% Science on experiments done with this Kerbal on-board.

+ xxx% Transmission Boost on data analyzed in the Science Lab.

- xxx% Reputation Gain for Recovering this Kerbal. (Scientists are too nerdy/antisocial to be fun, right Kerbal public? Perhaps a strategy can be used to advertise science to the public that makes scientist Kerbals get normal reputation for recovery.)

Engineer

*Skill can be increased by docking, flying, and repairing wheels/solar panels/repacking parachutes

*Skill is gained somewhat faster with higher courage and stupidity.

*Can EVA to scale a slider for Thrust and Isp balance, where there is a trade-off.

*The amount that Thrust/Isp can be rebalanced is related to the Engineering skill level of the Kerbal.

*Only Kerbals who can repair Solar Panels and Battery-Packs.

- xxx% Funds recovered from modified parts. (Parts need to be rebuilt from these stupid modifications!)

Pilot

*Skill can be increased by total time spent maneuvering a craft. (Actually pressing buttons on the keyboard)

*Skill is gained faster with higher courage.

+ xxx% RCS Thrust on Rotation. (Not translation though, because that would alter Delta-V!)

+ xxx% Reaction-wheel responsiveness. (Also default reaction-wheel responsiveness is decreased. They're too OP!)

+ xxx% Reputation gain for successful return to Kerbin.

+ xxx% Reputation Loss for This Kerbal's death.

BadS

*Default skill for BadS=True, though a high enough Piloting skill can unlock this trait.

*Skill increases by pulling high gee-forces, going to new places for the first time, Command-Seat Flight in a thick atmosphere, and time spent maneuvering a craft.

*Skill increases very slowly unless Courage and Stupidity are both at or over 50%.

+xxxxx% Reputation Gain for successful return to Kerbin.

+xxx% Increase in Crash Tolerance of parts, due to magic because This Kerbal is just that awesome.

+xxxxx% Reputation Loss for This Kerbal's death.

... and more, I guess. Just a few thoughts. Also, I like making lists!

I'm not sure about BadS's increase of crash tolerance, but at least it doesn't affect Delta-V or TWR. That's the one thing I don't want, is for Delta-V or TWR to be passively changed by Kerbals on the ship. That's why I but BadS in spoiler tags, because it's not really that great an idea to passively change anything on the ship without direct involvement.

EDIT:

Plus maybe some fun 'perks' which they can have several of like

Will to live - This Kerbal will automatically bail out of a destroyed pod instead of being KIA when the part is destroyed

Badass - Like the current flag - this Kerbal doesn't flinch in the face of danger

Maybe those would be some coo traits to add.

Edited October 22, 2014 by GregroxMun

[Franklin]

Of course, if you can't alter part stats, then that pretty much means their entire idea for kerbal experience goes out the window because, you can have kerbals who increase science stats and then kerbals who do....????

Not to talk down to all the famous astronauts throughout history, but when a rocket is manned it's not like the ground staff worries the mission will be a failure because none of their crew is a high enough level. Buzz Aldrin or Johnny Nobody will man a successful mission.

Pre-launch protocol (player checking the design), rigorous simulations (players reverting test flights) and constant training and prior research are what make a mission successful. The physics don't bend around the skillset of the astronauts because they're all charged with following very strict protocol and are being monitored and guided by a entire staff throughout the entire mission. One could argue the player is that overseeing body with the Kerbals.

So while I'm fine with Kerbal experience relating to skill-based tweaks, like how fast science is transmitted, and how much reputation you lose for killing a famous astronaut, I don't want to see wings get better lift because Jeb is a level 5 Magician.

[bigbadben]

Of course, if you can't alter part stats, then that pretty much means their entire idea for kerbal experience goes out the window because, you can have kerbals who increase science stats and then kerbals who do....????

Easy. When I have a Kerbal that does a Grand Tour, I want to be able to put a mohawk on top of his helmet!

Use the badge system from final frontier/reddit challenges, and add in some flair or costumes for cool achievements.

...and some perks/science/funds/reputation if you really want to

[tater]

If they become "NPCs," then they can use skills. You could also take a role playing game (think Traveller, D&D, etc) route. Make AI pilots a thing (player can always take over). Yes, like mechjeb, basically, only just Jeb, himself, and he;s already in the capsule. Whenever there is a task that requires the pilot, the game, well, rolls some dice. The skill level determines how well (within some random range) the task is completed. The rocket physics is entirely unchanged. So a burn is scheduled at T+37 minutes, 23 seconds. The burn is 100% power for 17 seconds. The ship is to be pointed at 122 degrees, no inclination. The game would take this event, and based on the pilot skill the burn should take place around T+37' 15" (really 15.5). It might take place a couple seconds late, and the burn might go long. In the latter case, Jeb might chase the marker and correct (goal always to make the burn have a green check). The actual direction might be 120 degrees, and +1 inclination, too. You get the idea. If chasing the marker, or having to do a correction (or a few) to get to the target uses more fuel, there is the penalty for an unskilled pilot. Not that the Isp of the engine is reduced.

Science is already very abstract, I'm fine with skill as a modifier (even a buff---Bill knows what rocks to collect, jeb does not).

[r4pt0r]

Since comparing ksp to other games seems to be the trend, let my put my thoughts forward.

In halo 3 multiplayer, what determined victory was player skill, not some perk that lets you sprint longer, or reload faster, or some other perk.

Halo 3 had the best MP because everyone had the same stats, only separated by skill. The same applies to KSP, in a roundabout sort of way(MP aside).

Every player in KSP should have the same part stats, separated only by building and piloting skill.

[Whirligig Girl]

The idea has always been that the Kerbals are piloting the ships. Why else would they have panels full of controls in front of them? You are telling them what to do, and they are doing it. You are playing the role of the Kerbals. This is not a new idea, and is in fact the reason Squad has always been opposed to the idea of making autopilots such as MechJeb part of the stock game.

Do you think every Apollo lander pilot used exactly the same amount of fuel while setting the LEM down?

Besides, guys, many of you are talking about this as if a poor Kerbal pilot will have trouble getting to Mun one-way in the same ship that a good pilot can make a round-trip to Tylo. What was actually said was,

Still, that'd down to how you as the player as the Kerbal pilot the ship. Different players (different "Kerbals") will use different fuel reserves depending on his/her skill.

[Franklin]

For future reference: if at any time you need to say "because of magic" during a design element inclusion, it's a terrible idea for a game about rocket simulation.