Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[razark]

My number one question right now:

Can I turn it off?

Some people play this as a simulation. Some play it as an RPG. The way this "feature" has been described does not seem to appeal to many people. If it is to be, let it be as an option.

(With very heavy mod support so that modders can rebuild it...)

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.

<snip>

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).

I love this idea. The post describes exactly what I want (and expected based on previous comments from the developers) to see.

[NathanKell]

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.

Yep, let's allow skilled kerbals to fly lifting reentries. Oddly enough, that doesn't require doing all the bad things that we are talking about here. Instead it requires building a pod with an offset center of mass.

[Maxmaps]

We're keeping an eye on this discussion regarding changes but I'd like to clarify some things first.

The way we look at the thrust boosting trait is more nuanced than it looks. This guy over at Reddit actually nailed our reasoning perfectly.

But here's some extra points that should be made clear!

The current system works on 5 levels of veterancy, with level 1 giving no bonus at all.

These bonuses would be really, really small, think something between 3 and 5% at max level.

They would be hard to earn, as we want to encourage people to leave Kerbin's SOI

They only affect parts you have full control over, to signify the Kerbal knowing how to work a rocket better, modules without thrust control would see no benefit whatsoever.

The current system we have planned has them only active under certain circumstances, say a Kerbal may have a trait for 4% more thrust while in Atmosphere, and another one while in Vacuum.

Traits don't stack.

We're still looking at the system as a whole, so feedback is always welcome!

Edit: Franklin beat me on reposting!

[tater]

How do you get 4% more thrust out of a rocket engine that produces X thrust via "piloting?" How, pray tell, does someone "milk the engines?" In Star Trek… they invent new physics as SOP every episode, even using ST as an example says a lot to me in the context of even slightly realistic rockets.

Edited October 22, 2014 by tater

[razark]

How do you get 4% more thrust out of a rocket engine that produces X thrust via "piloting?"

A Real Pilot knows that he can sneak a file on board and modify the panel so he can push the lever further?

[Twreed87]

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.

Uggghhhhh..... but he IS steering well enough! I'm the one steering!!! I'm already on a perfectly straight line, and I can tell because my Navball says so. You have to either be talking about the game taking over and doing things I'm not doing, or the results not matching up with what's shown on screen. As in, my ship is wobbling all over the place, but I get the deltaV as if it wasn't.

[AmpsterMan]

I must admit, this makes more sense to me now. I still think it is kinda corny and sci-fi-ish, but atleast it is going on an established trope that I wouldn't be against.

[PDCWolf]

The current system works on 5 levels of veterancy, with level 1 giving no bonus at all.

These bonuses would be really, really small, think something between 3 and 5% at max level.

They would be hard to earn, as we want to encourage people to leave Kerbin's SOI

They only affect parts you have full control over, to signify the Kerbal knowing how to work a rocket better, modules without thrust control would see no benefit whatsoever.

The current system we have planned has them only active under certain circumstances, say a Kerbal may have a trait for 4% more thrust while in Atmosphere, and another one while in Vacuum.

Traits don't stack.

Oh come on, don't copypaste us please, feels degrading.

Anyways, take for example a 5% increment of ISP, that's boosting the NERVA to 840 Isp, which is a lot in the long run. Add two Kerbals that can give you 5% boost and you get closer to an overly efficient (OP) LV-909.

The problem is that going lower than that may make the feature feel useless too, that's why I suggest thinking what is actually affected by Kerbals instead of taking the easy way out. Some of the stuff mentioned in this thread (and on reddit) is pretty good actually and would make for a more than enjoyable, non-physics-breaking, well thought-out experience.

[Draft]

We're keeping an eye on this discussion regarding changes but I'd like to clarify some things first.

The way we look at the thrust boosting trait is more nuanced than it looks. This guy over at Reddit actually nailed our reasoning perfectly.

But here's some extra points that should be made clear!

The current system works on 5 levels of veterancy, with level 1 giving no bonus at all.

These bonuses would be really, really small, think something between 3 and 5% at max level.

They would be hard to earn, as we want to encourage people to leave Kerbin's SOI

They only affect parts you have full control over, to signify the Kerbal knowing how to work a rocket better, modules without thrust control would see no benefit whatsoever.

The current system we have planned has them only active under certain circumstances, say a Kerbal may have a trait for 4% more thrust while in Atmosphere, and another one while in Vacuum.

Traits don't stack.

We're still looking at the system as a whole, so feedback is always welcome!

Edit: Franklin beat me on reposting!

Your reasoning works for the thrust perk, if you turn your head and squint. The SSMEs were also overthrottled, if I recall correctly.

Engine efficiency is the biggest, most blatant, most nonsensical magical ......... Axe it.

[Franklin]

How do you get 4% more thrust out of a rocket engine that produces X thrust via "piloting?" How, pray tell, does someone "milk the engines?" In Star Trek… they invent new physics as SOP every episode, even using ST as an example says a lot to me in the context of even slightly realistic rockets.

Yeah maybe a Sci-Fi show known for constantly flubbing physics isn't the best comparative example for those who hate something because of its lack of realism.

[NathanKell]

Let's consider 5%. For your average 7000m/s Mun landing, that's 350m/s extra delta V. For thrust, 5% is as if you strapped not just one, but one and a half LV-909s to your Mainsail, without paying in mass.

I think these would be great as tech upgrades. I even think, as NoMrBond and other suggested, it would be great if those fancy new Kerbal models were used so you have named scientists as well as named pilots. But I don't think they make sense, or lead to good gameplay, as pilot-related bonuses.

Science *does* make sense as pilot-related, mind, I'm not saying pilots shouldn't matter.

[Pbhead]

Ill take that reasoning that experienced kerbals fly the same stuff better.

thus.

I am totally ok with kerbals giving x% more fuel efficiency at max level...

Assuming that all parts which can be buffed by "kerbal fuel efficiency" are nerfed by that same x% fuel efficiency on beta day.

and such similar such.

Or perhaps, what might be better would be 'ship flys at 9x% efficiency until kerbals are maxed out properly'.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Pbhead

[Maxmaps]

I'm not saying pilots shouldn't matter.

And that's kinda where the crux of the argument is here. People who are okay with the idea of the Kerbals being the ones piloting don't really seem to mind the fact that they get better at steering and overall become more efficient pilots. People who see themselves as the pilot don't like the idea of getting extra bonuses when they are already performing at what they consider to be peak capacity.

Edit: This is also a pretty good example of the divide between the playerbase between seeing the game as a simulator or a game.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Maxmaps

[bigbadben]

what about KerbalEdu? doesn't this kinda defeat the point?

For example:

Suzy sits down, pays attention to the teacher, consults a delta-v map, and does the rocket equation. She launches, does the gravity turn correctly, and barely makes orbit.

Bobby sits down, but his computer has a Kerbal that is leveled up all the way. He pays attention to the teacher, consults a delta-v map, and does the rocket equation. He launches, does the gravity turn correctly, and makes orbit with extra fuel in his ship and at a higher orbit.

...which means the delta-v maps are all wrong, the equations don't work, and grinding his Kerbal to a higher level of experience replaces his understanding of orbital physics, rocket assembly, piloting, and personal understanding. It reduces KerbalEdu to a game, instead of an educational tool.

Which is fine, if that's what you want. I personally think it takes away something special that KSP has.

The end of a dream, the dream that was Kermelot.

Again, I personally think that in this instance, KSP should retain the simulator aspect instead of the game aspect for flying. In the long run, I think people would like that more. One of the points in having the same Kerbal system instead of a random solar one was because of the community sharing their experiences. I think the flying and parts should be the same, so the community can continue to share. I enjoy watching twitch, seeing something, and wanting to try it myself...because -I- became better at piloting, not my kerbal.

Use Kerbal exp for flair, costumes, certifications, or non-flight bonuses.

Edited October 22, 2014 by bigbadben
added kerbal system/solar system/Kermelot

[Xavven]

We're keeping an eye on this discussion regarding changes but I'd like to clarify some things first.

The way we look at the thrust boosting trait is more nuanced than it looks. This guy over at Reddit actually nailed our reasoning perfectly.

But here's some extra points that should be made clear!

The current system works on 5 levels of veterancy, with level 1 giving no bonus at all.

These bonuses would be really, really small, think something between 3 and 5% at max level.

They would be hard to earn, as we want to encourage people to leave Kerbin's SOI

They only affect parts you have full control over, to signify the Kerbal knowing how to work a rocket better, modules without thrust control would see no benefit whatsoever.

The current system we have planned has them only active under certain circumstances, say a Kerbal may have a trait for 4% more thrust while in Atmosphere, and another one while in Vacuum.

Traits don't stack.

We're still looking at the system as a whole, so feedback is always welcome!

Edit: Franklin beat me on reposting!

I just don't like the Star Trek analogy. Scotty is an engineer in a room with a warp drive sitting in it. If he wants more power, he actually modifies the parts of the ship. Jeb is in a command module -- more analogous to Chekov than Scotty.

I just don't like the sport car analogy either. The player is the driver (we really are sounding like a broken record here). I'm not sure I'd like a car racing game where you level up the driver to get more acceleration and turning performance. Racing games upgrade your CAR, not the driver. In KSP this is accomplished by unlocking better parts in the tech tree. Jeb landing on Vall should have no bearing on how much thrust output he gets.

I'm still waiting for an answer to why Jeb gets bonus thrust on the vertical ascent portion of a launch from the launchpad when I have no control inputs. I'm glad Squad decided to exempt SRBs from the bonus, but I still have liquid fueled engines during my initial ascent on 95% of my designs so I have thrust vectoring.

[hoojiwana]

I think these would be great as tech upgrades. I even think, as NoMrBond and other suggested, it would be great if those fancy new Kerbal models were used so you have named scientists as well as named pilots.

That's the thing that is bothering me the most, they're trying to add in bonuses and stuff that would fit far better as part of other features. It comes across like they're shoehorning in reasons for something to exist because they haven't gotten to implementing the actual reason they're adding the system. Which is surprising to me since they've not bothered to do that before, they've just added a framework and left it as is until they get around to looking at it again.

Bonus thrust and ISP and what-have-you is so much better suited to improving parts as you progress on the tech tree, with current stats being the "best" version.

[Draemora]

We're keeping an eye on this discussion regarding changes but I'd like to clarify some things first.

The way we look at the thrust boosting trait is more nuanced than it looks.

...

We're still looking at the system as a whole, so feedback is always welcome!

Edit: Franklin beat me on reposting!

Modifying part performance is honestly uninteresting and would directly alter how ships are shared and behave. As mentioned before, "you would need a lvl 5 kerbal to make this rocket go to Duna" or w/e. Imo, Kerbal experience shouldn't alter gameplay unless automation is involved.

[micha]

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).

I get what you're saying. The actual game code tweaks the parts to simulate a better or worse pilot. That works fine in RPGs where a better swordfighter has a better chance to hit a monster. But that's mostly because it's *click to hit* and not a realistic 3d tracking system to swing the sword and a physics-based impact calculation system modelling armor etc.

KSP is different. The bit I highlighted above is actually fallacious in KSP because I can take the craft, and calculate out whether or not it's possible to get the 71km periapsis with Kerbin. Irrespective of pilot. That's physically the best the craft can achieve, and KSP models physics well enough that one can perform that calculation. There's NO WAY to get better than that, not even with the best pilot ever.

It IS, however, very easy to get WORSE than that. And in fact, most human pilots would never be able to hit that perfect 71km periapsis. Which is why spaceships in Real Life are controlled by computers most of the time.

In the example above, with the proposed changes to KSP, if I had that average pilot in the capsule trying desperately to get back to Kerbin, I could just send Jeb up on another ship, EVA him over to take over command, and suddenly the ship can achieve a periapsis of say 60km. Which completely breaks all the physics which KSP tries to cling onto. It has nothing to do with Jeb being the better pilot, and that's what has people so upset over these proposed perks.

[Draft]

And that's kinda where the crux of the argument is here. People who are okay with the idea of the Kerbals being the ones piloting don't really seem to mind the fact that they get better at steering and overall become more efficient pilots. People who see themselves as the pilot don't like the idea of getting extra bonuses when they are already performing at what they consider to be peak capacity.

Edit: This is also a pretty good example of the divide between the playerbase between seeing the game as a simulator or a game.

And it's a flawed argument because, you know, vessel control actually is mapped to player control. And has been for the entirety of KSP's development. People see themselves as the pilot because they pilot the ships.

[Norcalplanner]

Your reasoning works for the thrust perk, if you turn your head and squint. The SSMEs were also overthrottled, if I recall correctly.

Engine efficiency is the biggest, most blatant, most nonsensical magical ......... Axe it.

The SSMEs were run at greater than 100% power because the engines were upgraded over time. 100% power represented full power of the original, unupgraded engine. It allowed for constant calculations over time by saying that the new engine at full power was 106% (or whatever it was) of the original engine.

So how about it, Squad? After some period of game time, or some number of times launching a particular part, we can spend science points to upgrade parts? Make the upgraded KS-25 x 4 engine put out 3300 kN instead of 3200 kN, or increase the Isp to 325/365?

[Franklin]

Ferram with a fairly solid point on Reddit,

[Draemora]

And it's a flawed argument because, you know, vessel control actually is mapped to player control. And has been for the entirety of KSP's development. People see themselves as the pilot because they pilot the ships.

And huge part of the community is centred around sharing ships and learning how to do manoeuvres under certain conditions. Suddenly, Scott Manly can make rockets with 5% less fuel because his Jeb is better.

[*Aqua*]

It seems to me mostly all of you think the Kerbal will alter the performance of a space craft. It doesn't need to be this kind.

As mentioned before by other people it could affect other aspects of gameplay like funds, science and reputation. KSP isn't only about how much delta you've got.

So just wait and see what Squad will do.

[tater]

And that's kinda where the crux of the argument is here. People who are okay with the idea of the Kerbals being the ones piloting don't really seem to mind the fact that they get better at steering and overall become more efficient pilots. People who see themselves as the pilot don't like the idea of getting extra bonuses when they are already performing at what they consider to be peak capacity.

I am fine with roleplaying the Kerbals, and don't necessarily need to see myself as the pilot. I don't see this as doing that. I'd rather see the Kerbals as NPCs, frankly. Then I assign them a task, say landing at my Mun Base, and how close they get (or if they wreck the ship) is related to their skill. I can totally live with that. I'm utterly uninterested in buffs, and would never turn it on, or not play to a point it took effect until modded out.

Is there any way to actually make the Kerbal pilot skill matter short of full AI, weighted by skill level?

I'm not convinced there is.

I really think it requires randomness to work properly (skill as a thing in an RPG).

It seems to me mostly all of you think the Kerbal will alter the performance of a space craft. It doesn't need to be this kind.

As mentioned before by other people it could affect other aspects of gameplay like funds, science and reputation. KSP isn't only about how much delta you've got.

So just wait and see what Squad will do.

Because they said flat out it will alter the performance. We don't have to wait, Squad said it, it's "a thing."

Edited October 22, 2014 by tater

[Draemora]

It seems to me mostly all of you think the Kerbal will alter the performance of a space craft. It doesn't need to be this kind.

As mentioned before by other people it could affect other aspects of gameplay like funds, science and reputation. KSP isn't only about how much delta you've got.

So just wait and see what Squad will do.

As of now, they would be altering that. We would be perfectly content with reputation, science, or funding changes.