Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[Franklin]

Cannot wait for the .edu chapter that shoehorns how a level-up buff system plays into astronauts and spaceflight. Maybe it'll just be a clip from an episode of Star Trek.

[micha]

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

Beat me to it. Agree. The History (First Ribbon?) aspect of KE would be very nice to have in Sandbox as well.

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

Any and all of these are (IMHO) acceptable uses of KE.

[ArmchairGravy]

18 pages of hate for a system people know no details about. Nice troll, Squad.

[CaptainKipard]

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

I anticipated this kind of response and it's a little superficial. KSP is about managing a space program, and this is based on reality and dare I say that it is this aspect that makes this game most attractive. There's plenty of space RPGs out there. I know people love to cry "realism", but this game is already more of a game than a simulator.

Also here's my comment from another thread which got moved here later so some might not have seen it.

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..

[tater]

More thrust is patently absurd, that's kooky (unless ole Jeb's breakfast was "off" and he's adding his own propellant to the cause out the window).

Efficiency? That's really a poor choice of heading in atmosphere, but that should only be true if the rocket actually flies the heading that results in less drag, and left fuel used. So either take control from me and put the rocket in the idealized track, or don't, and no buff. In space, it's the choice of maneuvers (how close that plane change burn was to the appropriate node to match the target's plane), or the accuracy of doing those maneuvers (because if you screw up you have to correct, etc). As has been said, ALL have penalties for mistakes, not buffs for doing them better. If the top skill is 5, 5 is perfect, and all below should do WORSE. We have a boundary value here, the actual specs of the rocket.

Automate node execution, have an error bar on each parameter, and have skill reduce its magnitude.

[Brotoro]

18 pages of hate for a system people know no details about. Nice troll, Squad.

That's because most of these guys have experience, so they get a 5% bonus on hate posts.

[Maxmaps]

18 pages of hate for a system people know no details about. Nice troll, Squad.

Any internet where people don't have passionate reactions to matters without the full information being available is not an internet I want to be on, good day sir.

[tater]

That's because most of these guys have experience, so they get a 5% bonus on hate posts.

I'm a total noob, but I picked the right strategy at the admin building, so I leveled up before I even made it to the VAB.

[Gildedbear]

Sometimes a topic is important enough to make a person register. This is one of those times.

Add me to the pool of people who feel that kerbal traits should not change the stats of parts. Instead, if traits are going to affect the technical characteristics of a craft, let me the player access them in a logical fashion.

A few examples:

Jeb has a great deal of experience running rocket engines at full throttle and knows that you can get a bit more out of them so when he's piloting the throttle for me the player goes up to say 110% to represent running the engines above their rating. But that is going to lead to more heating and perhaps even reduced ISP, if you want to go there.

Bob on the other hand freaks out with high thrust but has learned that if you feather the throttle just right you will use fuel more efficiently and so I the player will get slightly increased ISP under 1/3rd throttle.

Meanwhile Bill loves all the science and knows just what the scientists need so hisnsample collections are worth more and his transmissions have less waste so take less time. (Which is likely the thinking already in place)

But honestly, while actually having effects come from Kerbal experience is a nice idea, I really don't feel the effects are needed. The Final Frontier mod does nothing but record the experiences of Kerbals and award them ribbons and I love it and it makes me care about /who/ I send on missions. (For instance rookies on basic parts tests or vets when pushing the boundries)

A wonderful improvement would be to simply award, as my brother put it, "hats" to the kerbals based on experience. The "hats" being things like, hair styles, glasses, space suit colors, special visors, patches, or maybe recolors of the ship parts, etc.

I know that's a lot of art work to do but a lot could be put in front of the community as was done with the kerbal company logos. However, even if you don't want to go that route yourself, please try to have the hooks installed so that the wonderful modding community that has grown around your game can?

[Superfluous J]

The only way this would work is if "actual" ISP of a craft is the ISP you'd get when you multiplied what the part says times the maximum benefit you can get from the pilot. Any lesser pilot futzes with the controls in unseen ways that causes the end result to be less efficient than that "actual" ISP.

I'm actually cool with that, but be up front. Your Level 10 pilot isn't getting BETTER efficiency out of the rocket. Your Level 1 pilot is swerving left and right violently during maneuvers, causing the effective ISP to be WORSE.

So the ISP listed in the VAB should be perfection, and to start your Kerbals should do worse than it.

And even then it's bleah to me. I don't want it.

[tater]

Yeah, 5thhorseman is right there. Of course if my rocket is swerving violently, I should see it swerving violently. The inefficiency needs to manifest itself. That's easy with AI pilots, you'd watch them struggle.

[Draemora]

The only way this would work is if "actual" ISP of a craft is the ISP you'd get when you multiplied what the part says times the maximum benefit you can get from the pilot. Any lesser pilot futzes with the controls in unseen ways that causes the end result to be less efficient than that "actual" ISP.

I'm actually cool with that, but be up front. Your Level 10 pilot isn't getting BETTER efficiency out of the rocket. Your Level 1 pilot is swerving left and right violently during maneuvers, causing the effective ISP to be WORSE.

So the ISP listed in the VAB should be perfection, and to start your Kerbals should do worse than it.

And even then it's bleah to me. I don't want it.

This makes the game intentionally harder for noobies.

[tater]

This makes the game intentionally harder for noobies.

Vs making it even easier for the experienced that don't need it?

[JedTech]

The only way this would work is if "actual" ISP of a craft is the ISP you'd get when you multiplied what the part says times the maximum benefit you can get from the pilot. Any lesser pilot futzes with the controls in unseen ways that causes the end result to be less efficient than that "actual" ISP.

I'm actually cool with that, but be up front. Your Level 10 pilot isn't getting BETTER efficiency out of the rocket. Your Level 1 pilot is swerving left and right violently during maneuvers, causing the effective ISP to be WORSE.

So the ISP listed in the VAB should be perfection, and to start your Kerbals should do worse than it.

And even then it's bleah to me. I don't want it.

Perhaps this would be better done by having more accurate SAS when better pilots are present.

[Draemora]

Vs making it even easier for the experienced that don't need it?

Exactly. That's why the system is dubious in the first place.

[CaptainKipard]

18 pages of hate for a system people know no details about. Nice troll, Squad.

Any internet where people don't have passionate reactions to matters without the full information being available is not an internet I want to be on, good day sir.

Flippancy pushes the discussion forward not. I know Squad have their "vision" but as I have said on several occasions in threads like this:

Squad is creating a product for public consumption. If you have a clear and overwhelming indication that people don't like an aspect of it, then change it. It's that simple. Supply and demand. You're lucky enough that you're working on an early access game, so take advantage of it.

The only way this would work is if "actual" ISP of a craft is the ISP you'd get when you multiplied what the part says times the maximum benefit you can get from the pilot. Any lesser pilot futzes with the controls in unseen ways that causes the end result to be less efficient than that "actual" ISP.

I'm actually cool with that, but be up front. Your Level 10 pilot isn't getting BETTER efficiency out of the rocket. Your Level 1 pilot is swerving left and right violently during maneuvers, causing the effective ISP to be WORSE.

So the ISP listed in the VAB should be perfection, and to start your Kerbals should do worse than it.

And even then it's bleah to me. I don't want it.

It's bleah to me too. Why would an astronaut swerve? Aren't spaceships balanced to thrust in one direction?

Please don't anyone bring up the Apollo 13 manual burn. If you remember this was done because a failure, and failures are not in KSP and probably wont be.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[micha]

The only way this would work is if "actual" ISP of a craft is the ISP you'd get when you multiplied what the part says times the maximum benefit you can get from the pilot. Any lesser pilot futzes with the controls in unseen ways that causes the end result to be less efficient than that "actual" ISP.

Which is similar to what I wrote a few pages back. Basically the best ever pilot EVER will be able to get close to 100%, everybody else will get slightly less.

OTOH, it also means unmanned craft are suddenly a lot more useful, since they will actually operate at 100%..

So now you'd have a decent trade-off - rely on a clumsy Kerbal to pilot your ship inefficiently to its destination (but get all that additional yummy science and reputation), or use a robot probe for maximum efficiency?

[Draemora]

Perhaps this would be better done by having more accurate SAS when better pilots are present.

Gimping SAS for new players and new careers seems shaky to me.

OTOH, it also means unmanned craft are suddenly a lot more useful, since they will actually operate at 100%..

So now you'd have a decent trade-off - rely on a clumsy Kerbal to pilot your ship inefficiently to its destination (but get all that additional yummy science and reputation), or use a robot probe for maximum efficiency?

Or I can put a probe under my capsule and get both. lol

Edited October 22, 2014 by Draemora

[Franklin]

Squad is creating a product for public consumption. If you have a clear and overwhelming indication that people don't like an aspect of it, then change it. It's that simple. Supply and demand.

We [and those on Reddit] are all seasoned veterans and a small sample of the greater player base. The Silent Majority was polled on this element and they all loved it.^{[citation needed]}

[NoMrBond]

Are the players who are going to be able to accrue these bonuses on their intrepid Kerbinauts the kind of players who would even need the bonuses?

I get the feeling the players who can get the bonuses don't (or won't) need the bonuses, while the people who could (probably) use the bonuses can't get (or won't be able to get) the bonuses because they can't pull off the missions with which to gain the XP for the bonuses in the first place.

Which leaves me wondering what purpose these bonus serve in terms of advancing the game?

I look forward to Kerbals benefiting from their experiences (and training) though, I'm just not sure about the system as described thus far

[klgraham1013]

Wow. It's like no one's played an RPG before. They've been talking about Kerbal experience for a long time. This sort of thing is actually what I assumed they were talking about. I am with the crowd that see's it akin to a better driver. Sure, I am actually flying the rocket, but so is Jeb (in the game world, anyway).

Now if they'd just implement DangIt!, they could add classes (pilot, mechanic, scientist), fix the tech tree and contracts, and I may actually be interested in career mode.

[metaphor]

Looking good.

I don't mind the increased hardware effectiveness as kerbals gain xp, since it's definitely a plus for gameplay reasons, even if not realistic. The only caveat I would like to see is that sandbox kerbals all have the same stats, and only career/science kerbals level up. That would make sandbox craft interchangeable between saves and between players, while they wouldn't be otherwise (if you build a ship and a kerbal gave you extra delta-v or something else so that it barely makes it into space, you might not be able to fly that craft into space without the same kind of kerbal on board). It also makes sandbox act the same as a "completed" career, which has been the philosophy so far. The sandbox vessels could behave as if kerbals with all max stats were on them all the time to keep it standardized.

[m4v]

I'm good with this, critique whatever you want, but we still don't have a reason for pick one kerbal over another or to not treat them as expendable items. This is better than nothing.

I'm actually cool with that, but be up front. Your Level 10 pilot isn't getting BETTER efficiency out of the rocket. Your Level 1 pilot is swerving left and right violently during maneuvers, causing the effective ISP to be WORSE.

So the ISP listed in the VAB should be perfection, and to start your Kerbals should do worse than it.

Why it has to be perfection? it could be just an average, or a nominal rating, or 90% of the absolute maximum value, real life has a lot of that. Kerbals that are more daring will push equipment over their limits because experience has told them that they will not break! or something.

Edited October 22, 2014 by m4v

[Draemora]

Wow. It's like no one's played an RPG before. They've been talking about Kerbal experience for a long time. This sort of thing is actually what I assumed they were talking about. I am with the crowd that see's it akin to a better driver. Sure, I am actually flying the rocket, but so is Jeb (in the game world, anyway).

Didn't know KSP was an RPG. Steam tags it as space, physics, simulation, science, and sandbox.

I'm good with this, critique whatever you want, but we still don't have a reason for pick one kerbal over another or to not treat them as expendables items. This is better than nothing.

Apparently they also have a history system now. Not killing your kerbals with cool achievements is an incentive. Honestly, nothing is better than arbitrary increases to thrust or ISP. It's boring, at its weakest it's unnoticeable, and at its strongest it messes with the physics and simulation aspects of the game.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Draemora

[Th3F3aR]

Well at least they don't implement one bit of the stuff i suggested for the trait system (yes i saw someone stealing my idea in this Thread ).

Although i liked my idea -> http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/96849-Devnote-Tuesdays-The-Onward-to-0-26-Edition?p=1479409&viewfull=1#post1479409

But let's face the truth and wait for the exp result maybe it's really cool how the devs plan it.

To the rest i must say, awesome load of work you managed to get done, i'm a programmer myself i can understand the pain of reworking code that works but isn't expandable anymore.