Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[PDCWolf]

It's more like the ship in theory has enough dV to get to Duna, but since you put a crap driver in the ship, he can't steer and wasted so much fuel that you aren't going to make it now.

Why? it's me making the inputs. Think of it as the god pulling the strings, it's the way it works on every role game, and even more on tycoon type games like KSP, even if the guy in the cockpit is green and has an eye bigger than the other, the controls are mine. There's no reason at all to penalize me (in case of low level kerbals) if I'm a great pilot just because it's my first mission and none of my kerbals have experience. the same applies for the contrary. If there was full blown machjeb style automation, then it would make sense to differentiate kerbals by piloting skills, but it is me behind the controls.

So, that Level 2 player in Skyrim can't do crap because you're bad at pressing keyboard buttons, or because they haven't leveled up enough?

If you know how to press buttons, you can do anything on any game, even fighting that high level bandit on the bridge on Morrowind who can one-hit you with his axe. Also, skyrim is a bad example because everything scales and you can do everything at any point in the game.

Again, in what game where a player's experience can determine how good or bad you are at something aren't you controlling the player?

He meant what I'm trying to say since my first post in this thread: Why should a "bad pilot" kerbal affect my efficiency if it's me manually controlling the ship and flying the most efficient pattern/transfer/landing? or rather Why should my ship behave differently on the exact same situation just because my kerbals are high/low level? it is me pressing the keys and I'm the best pilot in the world, I shouldn't be losing/winning efficiency just because I brought Juan Kerman with me.

It is still blowing my mind that people think that kerbals who can't drive is somehow violating physics.

Kerbals who can make a ship more efficient even if it is flown -exactly- the same way every time is a violation of physics.

[spyker92]

I'ma have to vote no, generating free isp and thrust just seems...wrong. This is cartoon sim, but its still a relatively accurate simulator for space. And stuff like that just is....not right.

I like the idea of boosting science gain, and maybe like handling in atmosphere / reentry etc, but not of free isp.

I think it would be better if science was directly tied to stupidity, stupid kerbals make poor scientists but good test dummies. And anything they do involving science is generally just bad. And that bravery affects reputation and medals / experience. A badass brave, no fear kerbal, that lands on a planet should have a huge reputation gain when he gets back / first lands on a foreign body. Or something.

Edited October 22, 2014 by spyker92

[hoojiwana]

I completely get why people have a problem. In game code it may be implemented that way but (presuming they're smart in how they present in game), it will, in fact, be kerbals learning how to drive better, not the engine getting more horsepower. Is the effect between the engine increasing horsepower and the kerbal flying better effectively the same? Sure, which is why, if one is thinking about how to code it, you may very well do it from the parts end. But if the attribute is "Jeb, Level 3 Pilot. +5% fuel efficiency" does that mean the engine is magically more efficient or he is a better driver?

As has been stated in the thread many times already the Kerbal isn't controlling anything, the player is. Without any player input on throttle, directional controls or staging the Kerbal doesn't do anything at all. If there was a autopilot-esque system whereby the player could order the Kerbal to perform a planned manuever or finish up a docking, then yes, having the Kerbal do better or worse at that would be the Kerbals skill. Though even that is assuming the Kerbals skill effects things like how accurate they are with timing and heading, rather than them getting Premium Jebediah Brand vacuum-optimised RCS nozzles that automatically detach and and reattach as Jeb gets in and out of the vessel.

[SkyRender]

I suppose part of the problem with a Kerbal's experience affecting craft performance is, well, the player's experience already does that. As you get better at performing tasks in KSP, you use less resources to do those tasks and get better results. Even though it makes perfect sense that Kerbals too would get better at them, the fact remains that the player is the one controlling the craft. Having them be able to make vessels suddenly get better ISP or thrust just by being inside of them doesn't really compute. Improving the control of the pitch/yaw/roll of the craft subtly based on the pilot, however, makes a bit more sense if we assume that the baseline control values listed are when you have an average pilot in the command seat. A skilled pilot genuinely can outperform an inexperienced one when it comes to maneuvering.

I see no issue with Kerbals getting better science and reputation rewards from their experience. Both of those work out fine and even have real-world analogues. Some other possible things to cause experience to improve: repair speeds (once a delay on repairing things like rover wheels is implemented), speed of processing and cleaning experiments with science labs, EVA maneuverability (this would definitely have to be subtle!), and of course their Courage and Stupidity scores changing based on their experience would be nifty too. As well as the potential for a Kerbal to become a BadS after getting enough experience.

[Seshins]

I said it in the devnotes and ill repeat. I am not keen on the Kerbals exp modifying the ships ability. I think the exp system would be better used in gaining or performing science, having the exp to travel further out, or to stay out in the solar system for longer, setting up outposts, research labs or colonys etc.

I feel like it would push the balance of what the game is trying to achieve into RPG/Arcade territory. I liked the fact it was my ship design and understanding of orbital mechanics that got me places (after a thousand attempts and redesigns) I dont like the thought of my ships being buffed because of Jeb.

Sorry SQUAD - ive been a somewhat quiet supporter of dev decisions (mostly) since i picked up the game, but this is one mechanic that im not happy about.

[Xavven]

Next time I waste fuel driving somewhere, I'll make sure to remember to blame physios rather than my bad driving.

You're simply saying that bad piloting can lead to poor gas mileage. If you suss out what the opposite side of the argument really is, it's that they think gas mileage should be determined by PLAYER SKILL, not KERBAL EXP. In other words, you waste fuel on a Mun landing because of poor PLAYER piloting, not because of Jeb's piloting.

What it comes down to is personal preference. Do you want the game to be based on player skill, or on character stats? People play RPGs like Skyrim because they want character progression. Other people play FPSs like CounterStrike because hitting or missing, headshotting, damage, etc. is 100% player skill and has nothing to do with how long you spent leveling up.

Personally, I want my good piloting to save the day. I don't want my good piloting f'ed up because of the Kerbal's stats. I also want my screw ups to result in disaster. I don't want my bad piloting to be recoverable because I spent 5 hours ahead of time leveling up Jeb.

[NathanKell]

I beg to differ. Scott Carpenter almost screwed himself by running out of RCS on (i think) Mercury 4. On Gemini 1, Gus Grissom was able to recover from a mission control error when they fired retro rockets at the wrong time by using the capsule's lift during re-entry to get most of the way back to their intended landing zone.

The Carpenter example (although that's a wee bit of an urban legend, one for which Carpenter was unfairly blamed, IIRC) would make sense if player control of the craft was mediated through the kerbal. It is not. I would like it to be, for the record, but the way to do that is to actually make the kerbal control the craft (and have the player give them tasks), not to magically increase or decrease the fuel supply. At one point that *was* Harv's plan, IIRC.

The Gemini example makes no sense to me, since one already can fly lifting reentries, and "firing the retros at the wrong time" has nothing to do with whether you magically have more or less fuel on your craft, but with...timing when you fire the retros. Again, I support (allowing) the abstraction of vessel control, but Kerbal Experience is not that.

Now, as to Skyrim: I support KerbalRPG, but see above: you need to *actually* abstract piloting, not fake-abstract it.

Finally, I just want to note that *all* your examples have been of how *bad* piloting can screw you over, not how good piloting lets you do impossible things.

Edited October 22, 2014 by NathanKell

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Here's why it violates physics:

Imagine you're on a return trip from the Mun, and you realize you aren't quite sure you have enough fuel to get home. You do your calculations, and you realize the best you can possibly do is lower your Kerbin periapsis to 71km. That's it, you're stuck. There simply isn't enough fuel in your tank, and your engines aren't efficient enough to change your velocity in a way that will allow you to intersect Kerbin's atmosphere. Now, tell me, how would a better pilot change that?

Here is how, and why I think semantics matters here:

You have just enough fuel to fly back to 71km with the pilot you have because, god bless him, as hard as they try, they just can't steer well enough to burn efficiently. But if you put Jeb in the seat, he can keep on a straight line better and can now stretch that fuel farther.

Again, I think this ultimately comes down to how one interprets what is happening (a lot of that will be determined by how Squad exactly explains what is happening when we get to that point).

If one sees it as engines magically becoming more efficient, then yeah, it looks dumb. If one sees it as one pilot is better than the other, then it looks less dumb.

Now, I'll agree. If how they explain it in game is that engines LITERALLY become more efficient, I will agree, it will be stupid. If they explain it as Jeb is a better pilot, I will be fine with it. Even if the actual implementation of those two ideals are virtually identical.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

As has been stated in the thread many times already the Kerbal isn't controlling anything, the player is.

The Kerbal doesn't make decisions. Whether the kerbal is actually pulling the levers at your command or not is up to interpretation.

You're simply saying that bad piloting can lead to poor gas mileage. If you suss out what the opposite side of the argument really is, it's that they think gas mileage should be determined by PLAYER SKILL, not KERBAL EXP. In other words, you waste fuel on a Mun landing because of poor PLAYER piloting, not because of Jeb's piloting.

I would imagine that if the player is a bad pilot, they are still going to crash on the Mun, regardless of Jeb's abilities.

The Gemini example makes no sense to me, since one already can fly lifting reentries, and "firing the retros at the wrong time" has nothing to do with whether you magically have more or less fuel on your craft, but with...timing when you fire the retros. Again, I support (allowing) the abstraction of vessel control, but Kerbal Experience is not that.

Well my point there wasn't that the firing of the retro thrusters would be effected. That was just the set up. But Gus was able to fly the ship closer to the intended recovery point more than perhaps a less piloted astronaut might have been able to do as a real life example of an astronaut's ability actually affecting how a mission progressed.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[tater]

In role playing, you have to play what you are. If your character is amazingly brilliant as a computer programmer, you get to make hacking rolls, even if you are personally challenged by upgrading your own video card drivers. I get the idea of skill altering capability. Really. I disagree with PDCWolf about "me" piloting the craft in many ways. It's Jeb (or whichever guy) driving. The thing is that it MUST be random, or it is a physics change.

Random. A bad pilot can have his best day ever. Every pilot has best days, eventually his best days are better, and is worst days are usually less bad. But It's not that everything he does stinks, then everything is better. This mechanism means that every single maneuver will be XX% better. Always. Or worse. Always.

On top of that, it has to interact with the player, THROUGH the player.

Say I'm a middle of the road KSP space pilot. Where is middle of the road for skill buffs? normal physics? Or is the worst kerbal normal, and the best a buff? If a great KSP player pilot has a meh kerbal flying, can he still do better than ME, a meh player, but with a stud of a kerbal driving?

Edited October 22, 2014 by tater

[Draft]

Here is how, and why I think semantics matters here:

You have just enough fuel to fly back to 71km with the pilot you have because, god bless him, as hard as they try, they just can't steer well enough to burn efficiently. But if you put Jeb in the seat, he can keep on a straight line better and can now stretch that fuel farther.

Again, I think this ultimately comes down to how one interprets what is happening (a lot of that will be determined by how Squad exactly explains what is happening when we get to that point).

If one sees it as engines magically becoming more efficient, then yeah, it looks dumb. If one sees it as one pilot is better than the other, then it looks less dumb.

Now, I'll agree. If how they explain it in game is that engines LITERALLY become more efficient, I will agree, it will be stupid. If they explain it as Jeb is a better pilot, I will be fine with it. Even if the actual implementation of those two ideals are virtually identical.

I still disagree that the baseline performance of perfect PLAYER input should be incompetence

[Xavven]

Here is how, and why I think semantics matters here:

You have just enough fuel to fly back to 71km with the pilot you have because, god bless him, as hard as they try, they just can't steer well enough to burn efficiently. But if you put Jeb in the seat, he can keep on a straight line better and can now stretch that fuel farther.

Again, I think this ultimately comes down to how one interprets what is happening (a lot of that will be determined by how Squad exactly explains what is happening when we get to that point).

If one sees it as engines magically becoming more efficient, then yeah, it looks dumb. If one sees it as one pilot is better than the other, then it looks less dumb.

Now, I'll agree. If how they explain it in game is that engines LITERALLY become more efficient, I will agree, it will be stupid. If they explain it as Jeb is a better pilot, I will be fine with it. Even if the actual implementation of those two ideals are virtually identical.

And getting back to my earlier example about a vertical ascent off the launchpad with no control inputs, can you offer an explanation of how Kerbal pilot skill would factor into that scenario?

[Skyentist]

I preferred it when achieving milestones, such as first orbit, moon landing, returns, or even docking, was achieved though my ability to build, learn, and pilot my vessels, and my skill alone. It makes the achiement more real, and the bragging rights better because it was me that built the space station, not my level 20 Pilot (Docking Specialist).

Whether I control the ship directly or I control the kerbal at the controls is just schematics. Ultimately in-game I dictate exactly how the ship is operating.

[tater]

The botched Mun landing is the perfect extreme example. The Kerbal pilot is great. Best possible. A legend. Jeb, but after years of experience and improvement.

New, player, without two clues to rub together… should be incapable of botching a simple Mun landing with Super Jeb in control. If he can still crash, the game is NOT role playing pilot skill. If the noob player tasked AI Jeb with landing in crater X that is 50m in diameter, he'd nail it. That is modeling Kerbals as pilots.

[Franklin]

If the end-game is Kerbals controlling themselves (again, would love some formal roadmap here, Squad) then experience and skills makes sense, but still not how Squad's proposing they work.

[Vanamonde]

You're still misunderstanding why people are having an issue with this. Let's say you drive your car to work, every day, and to simplify let's say every single time you drive, you drive exactly the same way. Now one day, you level up! Congratulations your engine now outputs 10 more horsepower and gets 5 more miles to the gallon, even though the way you drive hasn't changed at all.

This is the whole point. The Kerbal has gained more experience, so he's NOT driving exactly the same way. He does not literally have more fuel than he had before, but he is using it more efficiently. It only appears to defy physics if you are refusing to recognize that it is a game mechanic which is abstracting something messier. He uses his fuel better, and a simple way of simulating that in the game is to increase the effective ISP of the engine. It doesn't mean the engine is literally better because he is present. It's just a simulation, an abstraction, of the pilot's ability to use the ship's systems.

And folks, NASA may use computers and automation to take most of this imprecision out of operating their ships, but it has always been Squad's position that Kerbals do not. You may say that you don't like this choice, but that is very different from claiming that it violates physics. Two identical vehicles, under the same conditions, operated by pilots of different skills, are going to end up varying in their performance to a degree. To a degree.

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

Nobody is talking about exaggerated situations in which one pilot can't reach Mun in the same ship that another pilot makes a roundtrip to Moho.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Well, clearly i'm in the minority here. But I will leave (for now) with this: Proof that it is indeed Kerbals who are driving (using our direction):

You have a Kerbal in a command pod. You tell the command pod to move. It moves. You remove the Kerbal. You can no longer move the command pod. Why? Because a Kerbal is necessary to control it. Why? Because while you are pressing the buttons, the Kerbal is following your orders by actually performing the actions.

As it is now, those orders are followed perfectly. With XP, it's possible that Kerbals might follow those orders more or less accurately.

Whether one likes that as a type of gameplay is one thing. To say that it's bunk because Kerbals are absolutely passive is well, apparently wrong per the above example.

The botched Mun landing is the perfect extreme example. The Kerbal pilot is great. Best possible. A legend. Jeb, but after years of experience and improvement.

New, player, without two clues to rub together… should be incapable of botching a simple Mun landing with Super Jeb in control. If he can still crash, the game is NOT role playing pilot skill. If the noob player tasked AI Jeb with landing in crater X that is 50m in diameter, he'd nail it. That is modeling Kerbals as pilots.

OK, almost last thing. Of course they would be capable of botching a Mun landing with Super Jeb. Jeb isn't making decisions. He is just implementing your decisions more efficiently. If you make bad decisions, Jeb will implement those bad decisions more efficiently.

It is modeling their piloting skill - within the confines that they are doing what you tell them to do. They cannot make decisions on their own.. But once told what to do, they can execute those instructions to a greater or lesser ability.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[CaptainKipard]

The Kerbal experience traits boost the ship/part they’re on and can have some very funky effects. Currently these include boosting thrust, reducing heat generation, increasing fuel efficiency ...

This is just silly. Wouldn't it make more sense to make parts upgradable? Squad, please. Your job is to create an immersive experience. When a game keeps screaming "Look at me, I'm a game!" you fail at that task.

On another note: I'm looking forward to the editor changes. I hope for a lot of snapping options. And thumbs up for Squad implementing yet more mod functionality.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[The Destroyer]

I like it, however it could cause problems with craft sharing.

[Brotoro]

At first...this idea sounds stupid (except for science boost).

But if it's a matter of interpreting this as, "Hey...you know that docking you just did? Experienced-Jeb would have done it BETTER. So we're giving you 10% of the monopropellant back." Because, when I'm docking, I often forget which way I have stuff oriented...and squirt out a burst of RCS just to see which way it goes. Experienced-Jeb wouldn't do that nonsense. But it might be better to give Experienced-Jeb's ship stronger docking magnetism that will (insistently but not violently) make the end of the docking easier.

And the same thing when I land on the Mün. I dawdle on the way down, slowing up too soon and wasting fuel that Experienced-Jeb wouldn't have. So a give-back bonus would be reasonable. Then again, it might be nice if an Experienced-Jeb manned lander would give me the option of repositioning the landed ship somewhere else in a 500 meter radius...Go ahead...click to choose your new point...maybe over closer to your refueling station...because Experienced-Jeb would have been able to land right there, you know. Or maybe a lander manned by Experienced-Jeb could have landing legs that don't break at 15 m/s...because Experienced-Jeb would have slowed that ship down to under 10 m/s in the last instant, you know.

Your ship reached orbit carrying Experienced-Jeb? He would have done a more efficient gravity turn than you, you know...so have a 5% give-back on the fuel used. Or maybe, "Hey, you made orbit with XP-Jeb onboard...would you like to tweak the apoapsis or periapsis a little? We'll let you...because XP-Jeb would have gotten it right."

So...

I suppose I could talk myself into believing such things.

But, in general, I don't think I'd like it.

And, always remember: Experienced-Jeb is BETTER than YOU.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Brotoro

[Draemora]

Gonna stack ISP Kerbals on my launch stages instead of SRBs.

[tater]

OK, almost last thing. Of course they would be capable of botching a Mun landing with Super Jeb. Jeb isn't making decisions. He is just implementing your decisions more efficiently. If you make bad decisions, Jeb will implement those bad decisions more efficiently.

It is modeling their piloting skill - within the confines that they are doing what you tell them to do. They cannot make decisions on their own.. But once told what to do, they can execute those instructions to a greater or lesser ability.

Pilot skill IS decisions. That's the point.

Role-playing requires that the decision actually gets possibly moderated by the game to reflect the character. The stupid kerbal would not think of the amazingly creative solution to problem X in orbital mechanics. So you should not be allowed to do it.

Think real RPGs. "I hack into the Imperial Navy's computer, and take over the Tigress class battleship." GM: "your character has the IQ of a moderately intelligent labrador… Roll 10 or less on 10D20 to succeed." You are saying he should hack the computer, but only get 90% of it or something.

I'm cool with RPG stuff in the game. This is not that.

[PDCWolf]

Excellent. I have no problem with that view. You don't like the idea of having experience affect what you tell a kerbal to do. Perfectly valid point.

Though my impression experience levels are supposed to make the amount of improvement predictable so that the player can still have a somewhat reasonable expectation of what to expect, so it wouldn't really be random. It would just be that Jeb consistency flys the ship 3% better than Bob or something, so you have to take that into account if you fly Bob instead of Jeb.

What I find silly here is the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have kerbals to perform more or less efficiently without it violating physics.

Rocket equation is fixed, if two kerbals burn full power retrograde at periapsis at ETA-to-PE 0 with 180 units of fuel and they get different results, then you have a violation of physics' laws. And no, there's no way to do that more or less efficiently if you point retrograde and hit Z when the ETA-to-PE is 0, it doesn't matter if you are the most experienced pilot or you are doing the tutorial for the first time.

I completely get why people have a problem. In game code it may be implemented that way but (presuming they're smart in how they present in game), it will, in fact, be kerbals learning how to drive better, not the engine getting more horsepower. Is the effect between the engine increasing horsepower and the kerbal flying better effectively the same? Sure, which is why, if one is thinking about how to code it, you may very well do it from the parts end. But if the attribute is "Jeb, Level 3 Pilot. +5% fuel efficiency" does that mean the engine is magically more efficient or he is a better driver?

I get the thing about people saying that they put in the input and the kerbal does it. I guess that just depends on how you see the game.

If you see the game as you literally driving the ship and the kerbal is just...there. Then sure, kerbal attributes changing what happens doesn't make sense because the kerbal is literally not doing anything in the first place to change.

But if you view it as you inputting controls, and the Kerbal is executing those controls, then suddenly kerbals having attributes that affect things like efficiency suddenly become more plausible.

I'm god and I influence the Kerbals directly because I'm the creation and creator itself in this tycoon game. I make things happen or not, I even control the flow of time. That's how tycoon games work. If you want to roleplay differently, do so.

This is the whole point. The Kerbal has gained more experience, so he's NOT driving exactly the same way. He does not literally have more fuel than he had before, but he is using it more efficiently. It only appears to defy physics if you are refusing to recognize that it is a game mechanic which is abstracting something messier. He uses his fuel better, and a simple way of simulating that in the game is to increase the effective ISP of the engine. It doesn't mean the engine is literally better because he is present. It's just a simulation, an abstraction, of the pilot's ability to use the ship's systems.

And folks, NASA may use computers and automation to take most of this imprecision out of operating their ships, but it has always been Squad's position that Kerbals do not. You may say that you don't like this choice, but that is very different from claiming that it violates physics. Two identical vehicles, under the same conditions, operated by pilots of different skills, are going to end up varying in their performance to a degree. To a degree.

Nobody is talking about exaggerated situations in which one pilot can't reach Mun in the same ship that another pilot makes a roundtrip to Moho.

That would make sense if I get something like RT's flight computer and click prograde and set a burn time/dV and hit execute, not with the traditional tycoon style of being god. As I say, even if I roleplay the kerbals controlling the ship, it is me, player, who presses the buttons at the end of the day.

Well, clearly i'm in the minority here. But I will leave (for now) with this: Proof that it is indeed Kerbals who are driving (using our direction):

You have a Kerbal in a command pod. You tell the command pod to move. It moves. You remove the Kerbal. You can no longer move the command pod. Why? Because a Kerbal is necessary to control it. Why? Because while you are pressing the buttons, the Kerbal is following your orders by actually performing the actions.

As it is now, those orders are followed perfectly. With XP, it's possible that Kerbals might follow those orders more or less accurately.

Whether one likes that as a type of gameplay is one thing. To say that it's bunk because Kerbals are absolutely passive is well, apparently wrong per the above example.

OK, almost last thing. Of course they would be capable of botching a Mun landing with Super Jeb. Jeb isn't making decisions. He is just implementing your decisions more efficiently. If you make bad decisions, Jeb will implement those bad decisions more efficiently.

It is modeling their piloting skill - within the confines that they are doing what you tell them to do. They cannot make decisions on their own.. But once told what to do, they can execute those instructions to a greater or lesser ability.

If I remove the Kerbal then I have no one to influence with my godlike powers, I just have a big piece of metal floating aimlessly in space and there's no logical way to influence that.

[Norcalplanner]

In general, NO. NO NO NO NO NO. Squad, if you must include this, make it toggleable so I can turn it off.

If you want to implement experience for something that affects something other than reputation, funds, or science, then it needs to be done as a penalty. It should never be a bonus.

Example - You can put me behind the wheel of a Formula 1 car and I am not going to be able to get nearly the performance out of it that a professional driver can. Why? Because I'm not experienced. The overall physics of the car remains unchanged - what changes is the driver's ability to make use of it all.

In the same way, if a particular engine has an ISP of 360, then that's what it has. An inexperienced pilot not using it at the exact right time or in the exact orientation could be abstracted by assigning a penalty to an inexperienced pilot, but it should never go beyond what the physics sets. The only way logically I can see around this is to say "oh by the way, every single part stat only represents 90% of the actual physics and game capacity of that part" which will annoy a lot of people, but we'll get over it.

The most important thing in my mind is to keep some sort of log, a la Final Frontier (which I'm currently using and enjoying very much). That way you have an idea of who has done what, with a record kept in the game. It can be used for everything from contract generation "take three kerbals who have each performed at least five missions and land them on Duna" to a bigger reputation hit for losing an experienced kerbal, to perhaps unlocking minor special abilities in the game. An example of this last one would be that someone would have to have the engineer trait to do something like attaching a part via KAS.

The only gameplay mechanic I can think of that would really work is reaction time. Experienced pilot equals instant response, while inexperienced pilot means that there's a slight delay when doing what the player tells the kerbal to do. Of course, it would be annoying, but probably realistic - the inexperienced guy panics and has to consult the manual when the rocket is disintegrating around him.

[Franklin]

For those curious what our Reddit cousins think on it, it's just more of the same,

With this tidbit thrown in, which clarifies but doesn't make the proposed system sound any better,