Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[Draft]

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.

It seems to me you haven't read the devnotes or Max's post where they outright said how they're planning on Kerbals affecting spacecraft performance.

[razark]

It seems to me mostly all of you think the Kerbal will alter the performance of a space craft.

Funny how we got that idea from a developer saying that's exactly what it would do.

[Maxmaps]

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.

From a purely logical standpoint, absolutely. We have a lot of players who immerse themselves into the game to the point of seeing themselves as some manner of spectator, leading them to being attached to the little guys and deciding that specific missions were successful because they had Gilbin Kerman on instead of any other of the little guys.

Also should mention; this is only one part of the traits system, we already have a bunch of traits that affect things like science, reputation and funds. We're expanding the system and seeing how far it can/should go.

[Xavven]

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.

@Aqua Here is the quote from the devnotes that most of the discussion has been centered around:

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 and boosting science output.

[Xavven]

From a purely logical standpoint, absolutely. We have a lot of players who immerse themselves into the game to the point of seeing themselves as some manner of spectator, leading them to being attached to the little guys and deciding that specific missions were successful because they had Gilbin Kerman on instead of any other of the little guys.

Also should mention; this is only one part of the traits system, we already have a bunch of traits that affect things like science, reputation and funds. We're expanding the system and seeing how far it can/should go.

Sure, you have a lot of players who think that way. Just look at the poll on this thread. The "yes" vote isn't 0. Then again, look at the percentages...

[seanpg71]

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.

When the Apollo astronauts were on the way to the moon, they had to look out the window occasionally and line up a hand held device with the earth's horizon while pointing at various stars as part of the measurements to figure out where exactly they were. The accuracy of these numbers was entirely up to the skill of Michael Collins and as the mission progressed he figured out what worked and didn't in 0g and with the actual view out the window as compared to what had worked in the simulators with different optics and lighting conditions.

When they landed on the moon, NASA wasn't entirely sure where they were landed. They knew the general area to within a crater or two but that's about it. On every orbital pass they had Collins searching a different (incorrect) area of the moon below based on their guesses from the length and direction of the various burns and thruster firings, and from the descriptions of the local features from Neil and Buzz. He never managed to find the lander.

There is a reason that they put optional course correction burns in the flight plans for real missions. We don't always know exactly where things are, and they don't always perform exactly the same.

So sure, if you point retrograde and burn the physics will always be the same, but a less experienced crew might not actually be pointing quite retrograde the whole time - or might not correctly plan for the shutdown transient and then would have to correct for that afterwards.

We could model inexperienced Kerbals by having our exact orbital parameters be fuzzy, or by having our keyboard inputs get a bit mangled at times. Unfortunately - having our rockets fly crooked and not knowing exactly where they and where they're going would be annoying to play. So I don't see a big problem in having our craft always fly where we tell them to because it's fun, while imagining that the less experienced kerbals waste a bit more fuel in unshown corrections to make that happen.

[Draemora]

From a purely logical standpoint, absolutely. We have a lot of players who immerse themselves into the game to the point of seeing themselves as some manner of spectator, leading them to being attached to the little guys and deciding that specific missions were successful because they had Gilbin Kerman on instead of any other of the little guys.

Also should mention; this is only one part of the traits system, we already have a bunch of traits that affect things like science, reputation and funds. We're expanding the system and seeing how far it can/should go.

Will they have a history section or something showing what they have accomplished, what they have done, etc? Imo, that's much more interesting than a X% buff to Y.

[Maxmaps]

Will they have a history section or something? Showing what they have accomplished, what they have done, etc? Imo, that's much more interesting than a X% buff to Y.

Yes they will, a little log with their accomplishments that even remarks on whether they were the very first to do X or Y.

[hoojiwana]

Yes they will, a little log with their accomplishments that even remarks on whether they were the very first to do X or Y.

Why wasn't this mentioned in the dev notes? Seems like something people would've liked to know about.

[Draft]

From a purely logical standpoint, absolutely. We have a lot of players who immerse themselves into the game to the point of seeing themselves as some manner of spectator, leading them to being attached to the little guys and deciding that specific missions were successful because they had Gilbin Kerman on instead of any other of the little guys.

Also should mention; this is only one part of the traits system, we already have a bunch of traits that affect things like science, reputation and funds. We're expanding the system and seeing how far it can/should go.

Then announce a proper 'kerbal management' aspect of the game, where you CAN assign your kerbals to do tasks based on their skills and experience. Don't shoehorn magical buffs into normal manual gameplay that muddles the skill of the players.

[Franklin]

From a purely logical standpoint, absolutely. We have a lot of players who immerse themselves into the game to the point of seeing themselves as some manner of spectator, leading them to being attached to the little guys and deciding that specific missions were successful because they had Gilbin Kerman on instead of any other of the little guys.

Roleplay is a layer on top of the functionality of gameplay, it isn't an either-or thing like you describe. Not a single roleplayer would deliberately fill his fuel takes only half-full, or deliberately disable one control surface, or deliberately make a poor landing because they're role-playing with what they see as a novice Kerbal pilot. Gameplay and character engagement are separate elements.

[razark]

Also should mention; this is only one part of the traits system, we already have a bunch of traits that affect things like science, reputation and funds. We're expanding the system and seeing how far it can/should go.

But the way this was presented to a community was like a doctor telling you "You could bleed out on the table, overdose on anesthesia, die of an infection, have various surgical instruments left inside you, and there's a very a slight chance of removing your appendix."

[Lord Nihilus]

Can we disable this xp system?

[Draemora]

Yes they will, a little log with their accomplishments that even remarks on whether they were the very first to do X or Y.

That makes me a little happier regarding Kerbal exp. Also, how would this affect sandbox mode?

[Maxmaps]

Why wasn't this mentioned in the dev notes? Seems like something people would've liked to know about.

The devnotes are about stuff we've done over the week, the log is currently just in the planning stages. Once it's actually in, you'll get to see it on the devnotes.

That makes me a little happier regarding Kerbal exp. Also, how would this affect sandbox mode?

We see sandbox as a static but maxed version of the game. We currently don't see traits as a good fit for sandbox.

[CaptainKipard]

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.

It makes no sense to me however, partly because:

- Star Trek is a fictional universe that's being invoked here to "justify" it.

- There's a theoretical hard limit to the thrust generated by a real rocket and adding to it amounts to magic

- Driving a car around a racetrack is in no way analogous to making burns in space.

I really hate the RPG nature of this. I could forgive upgradeable parts or experience being applied to engineers when you research/build your parts, but not this.

[hoojiwana]

The devnotes are about stuff we've done over the week, the log is currently just in the planning stages. Once it's actually in, you'll get to see it on the devnotes.

That's not what you said elsewhere.

[Twreed87]

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.

See, I don't really get this. However you choose to roleplay it, functionally what's happening is that you are controlling the ship. You can phrase it as "you control Jeb, who controls the ship" or "Jeb sits and watches while you control the ship" but either way it's your input alone that determines what it does.

I just really, really don't think experience should play a role in anything relating to engine efficiency. Basically, if deltaV calculations are involved, I don't want pilots affecting it. Let them influence science and reputation, or perhaps give the player more precise control by taking over from the SAS or something.

[razark]

a less experienced crew might not actually be pointing quite retrograde the whole time - or might not correctly plan for the shutdown transient and then would have to correct for that afterwards.

This makes sense.

But then we should see that. Not just have it handwaved away with "more thrust" or "more ISP".

- Star Trek is a fictional universe that's being invoked here to "justify" it.

That's not really a good objection when you're talking about a fictional universe.

Edited October 22, 2014 by razark

[Brotoro]

Can we disable this xp system?

Kill your kerbals after every flight.

[tater]

It's too deterministic to read as "skill." Bad pilots have good days, even great days, and good pilots can have a bad day, even if it is less bad than the bad pilot's bad day.

Honestly, short of AI, I don't see skill as working out well in terms of flying. Not that I will ever know, because I'd turn it off.

[Draemora]

We see sandbox as a static but maxed version of the game. We currently don't see traits as a good fit for sandbox.

Kerbal history should stick in sandbox. It's a cute little detail for those of us who prefer it.

Now, if you change ISP through Kerbal exp, that would change the "max." That sort exemplifies the weirdness of this. A good discriminant could be whether or not you would have to alter something in sandbox to keep a part as maxed relative to career mode with a certain Kerbal in command.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Draemora

[CaptainKipard]

When the Apollo astronauts were on the way to the moon, they had to look out the window occasionally and line up ..., [etc]

So that's navigation, not engine efficiency. I have no problem with navigation if it were the Kerbals themselves who piloted, but it's not. I am.

[Lord Nihilus]

Kill your kerbals after every flight.

Cold. Calculated. Effective.

I approve.

[AlexinTokyo]

I'm going to record myself in the 'No' camp for Kerbal Experience altering physical properties of rockets.

As yet another alternative, here are some things I would like to see Kerbal Experience affect.

• G-LOC: If G-LOC were implemented (which I think would be cool), more experienced pilots should have either or both a higher tolerance and a shorter recovery time.
  
• Automated maneuvers: Again, this is an "if it's implemented", but I think it would be great if, having created a maneuver node, the Kerbal pilot could be instructed to carry it out. More experienced pilots should be able to carry out maneuvers better (more accurately, using less fuel) than less experienced ones. However, as a caveat, NO pilot should be able to exceed the mathematical limit on efficiency as determined by the stats of the rocket. For this to be genuinely useful, this should be able to happen while the vessel is unfocused. This might make it difficult to implement, though.
  
• Science output: No problems with this; a more experienced scientist should be able to take better, more useful, readings than a relative newbie. I would especially love it if 'science over time' were a thing, because then choosing personnel for your space station would be important, too.
  
• Reputation gain: Famous Kerbal is famous. No problems with this.
  
• Speed increases: On processes that take time (e.g. MSL processing and cleaning of experiments) more experience could mean quicker completion. If EVA repair of more parts were added, this could be quite a critical skill in certain situations.
  
• Certification restrictions: This one's alread been given a fair bit of air time, but I'd support restrictions on inexperienced Kerbals using certain technologies or taking part in certain missions.
  

I'm sure I'll think of some others, but that's probably long enough spent writing one post.