Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[Superfluous J]

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.

I actually saw that after I posted. I could only make it through about 10 pages before voicing my opinion

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.

You can push the thrust beyond its limits. You cannot push ISP beyond its limits. You CAN seemingly go below it by screwing up.

[Darnok]

Mike (Mu): Well, the experience system has come on in leaps and bounds. The back end is finished and has some nice little features which modders should enjoy. 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. Obviously, the performance boosting effects have to be quite subtle to not make things too easy but will still provide a solid boost should you care for your Kerbals.

boosting thrust, increasing fuel efficiency - NO

boosting science output - yes

IMO Kerbal experience should allow PLAYER do things faster and easier, but shouldn't have any impact on launch and mission costs, so:

- more science from mission,

- more power to SAS parts,

- even increasing max wheels speed is fine,

- allow Kerbal to repair more parts (they should have finite spare parts in backpacks, so more experienced Kerbal should be able to repair more parts),

- wider and longer range of magnetic force in docking ports to make docking easier,

- increased walk/run speed, higher jumps, longer (more fuel) EVA is fine, so the more experienced Kerbal would make things faster and more fun for player, walking from one point to other is not much fun,

- first level Kerbal shouldn't be able to go EVA,

- certificates for pilots, recruit Kerbal shouldn't be able to pilot every capsule and cockpit from start, this would create reason to build space stations and bases to lower training costs, and before Duna mission you would need to train pilots to use advanced crafts,

Edited October 22, 2014 by Darnok

[Capt Snuggler]

- first level Kerbal shouldn't be able to go EVA,

- certificates for pilots, recruit Kerbal shouldn't be able to pilot every capsule and cockpit from start, this would create reason to build space stations and bases to lower training costs, and before Duna mission you would need to train pilots to use advanced crafts,

This is a really good idea. also specialist training vehicles so kerbals can get there certification in that vehicle. kerbals cannot sit at the controls unless there is a qualified pilot (or and Orange Suit) also sitting at controls.

qualified kerbals would become HUGELY valuable for training!!!

The orange suits are the test pilots. they are the first to fly anything. they can then train other kerbals by co-piloting vehicles so the white suits can earn there certification.

hitchhiker crew tanks are for transport only. no flight hours are logged when seated in a hitchhiker.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Axelord FTW]

- first level Kerbal shouldn't be able to go EVA,

- certificates for pilots, recruit Kerbal shouldn't be able to pilot every capsule and cockpit from start, this would create reason to build space stations and bases to lower training costs, and before Duna mission you would need to train pilots to use advanced crafts,

This is a really good idea. also specialist training vehicles so kerbals can get there certification in that vehicle. kerbals cannot sit at the controls unless there is a qualified pilot (or and Orange Suit) also sitting at controls.

qualified kerbals would become HUGELY valuable for training!!!

The orange suits are the test pilots. they are the first to fly anything. they can then train other kerbals by co-piloting vehicles so the white suits can earn their certification.

hitchhiker crew tanks are for transport only. no flight hours are logged when seated in a hitchhiker.

That I could work with. Would need a LOT of tuning, however.

Would make Kerbal death more meaningful.

[mattinoz]

Welcome, and good first post, but your engine examples are still within the realm of magic. Afaik rockets engine have specific ISPs and specific thrusts, and specific delta-v. They are designed to be precise. Maybe someone can correct me. Even if this isn't the case then the a pilot's experience would not be appropriate here.

So we have to choose between both extremes? Come on, be serious. One can always compromise, and I for one would prefer Squad to err on the side of realism. Besides that aiming high means you reach higher.

Couldn't there be bonuses within the realm of science?

I mean if you have multiple engines running with a mix ISP then the more skilled pilot could throttle less efficient engines down first.

For example 2-3% fuel saving between 50-75% throttle and

3-5% between 25-50% but with matching drain on electricity or monoprop.

The further skilled pilot could trim throttle to keep within terminal velocity.

Skilled players are already doing that and getting themselves in to orbit on 100dV less than not doing it.

Yes this did occur to me after reading this thread.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43927-Multiple-throttle-groups

[possum]

KSP is a simulator, one that encourages role play but still a sim. When I fly a ship, it is my skill that matters, not the kerbal sitting in the pod. KSP is also a RPG when I have a kerbal EVA. That is the only time a kerbal's ex should matter, not when I am controling the ship. When I want my ship to do something the only thong that matters is how I do it, not the kerbal. Anything that changes how MY inputs are affected makes a big diffetance in what I am getting out of the the time I put into the game. When I spend hours building a ship that meets the way I fly a mission and anything changes the way that it works is wasting MY TIME, PERIOD. The stats of some in game being are meaningless to me. I am the engineer and pilot designing and flying ships not the kerbals, ME. For anyone who thinks they are not flying tell me who is piloting that Mk1-2, it is you. You did not assign a kerbal to be the pilot and fly while you sit back and enjoy the show, you are flying. If kerbal ex really needs to happen make it effect kerbals while EVA, things like running speed, jumping, science, and EVA pack control. That is the is the RPG aspect of the game. It can even influance the tycoon funtions in game but NOT piloting or ship function. A flair system like final frontier would be nice too.

[Capt Snuggler]

AWESOME! Now we only need a mod that will disable that by default, void all its effects, and also erase the memory of it ever being in the game.

So... much.. sarcasm.... cant... take........

I love it

[MarvinKitFox]

nonono ghods NO!!!

You want a more skilled Kerbal to have an effect: try this

> Better science

> better control during EVA

> easier docking

> smoother and/or faster throttle transitions

> repairs while on a mission

> better g-force tolerance. you *are* going to implement a check, that prevents a Kerbal from accurately piloting while subjected to 35g of acceleration, aren't you????

> allow improvement in range of comms radio, because he can align it better than the automated system.

> remind you if you are forgetting something. (umm, mission control, shouldn't we have deployed that solar array already? juice is gonna run low)

> partial autopilot abilities: "Pilot, adjust throttle to keep speed to terminal velocity during stage 1 and 2".

> partial "autopilot" abilities. Say you are landing a bit too hard, he will intervene at the last second and save the day

> capability of piloting a craft from the exterior command seat. *dont* ask em to believe a rookie astronaut will be comfy, flying at mach 2 while strapped to a lawnchair.

> better reward from contracts. They will pay more if the charismatic hero pilots their new engine, rather than some unknown dweeb.

> possibly allow him to consume a bit less life support, as he knows how to panic without breathing too deep!

but DONT!!!!!

let him increase the engine thrust, ISP.

What, is he farting into the fuel system?

Did he EVA and use a nailfile on the engine bell, to increase efficiency?

Is he Trusting to The Force and lifting the ship like Yoda???

Not likely!

[Rune]

Walt's gonna need a HAZMAT suit for his HAZMAT suit to deal with these flames!

Seriously though, this is exactly what we all agreed shouldn't be implemented.

+1 Since it echoes exactly what I had in mind. you should totally listen to us on this one to avoid having to ban people because of it...

Edit: Ok, now I read. It seems even in the poll in the other thread a large majority is pretty vocal about that, with only about a quarter of the people voicing any kind of support for it. The comments are universally against it. I think the people have indeed spoken... We are OK with the science boost thing, but you'd better think of other traits regarding engineering and piloting. And would it kill you to look at navigation for the fourth trait? We flew to the Mun (and pretty much everywhere else, if you were good enough) before maneuver nodes were a thing, they may yet become something you have to earn in the career game.

Oh, and I'm also pretty happy with how the editor revamp sounds. I'm sure I'll be able to re-learn my old tricks, and probably do things I can't now. That part I'm very happy about!

Rune. That said, I'll try to shut up about it until it's a fact.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rune

[boxman]

Do you like this concept, as its described by Mu?? I think that kerbals should not effect part stats myself. Science maybe, but Jeb isnt going to magically squeeze more isp out of an engine, or keep it cooler at full throttle.

Not at all.. They are going the exact opposite way of what I think they should be doing. They have been making the game less realistic and easier for quite some time now and this is even more of that. If they just wanted to make it easier they should have just gone with the original plan of having kerbals with experience having the ability to for example perform some manouvers like a very light auto pilot system. At least that would be somewhat realistic. Having them boost the thrust and fuel efficiency is not at all realistic and will just take away immersion and sense of achievement.

And if this feature cannot be turned off, I would say it is even game breaking for me. Like others have mentioned with such a feature the ships wont even fly the same, so a craft that can be flied by a certain kerbal might not fly so well using another one with a different level of experience. It makes absolutey no sense to me.

Edited October 22, 2014 by boxman

[boxman]

Honestly, it sounds like is part of the "kerbals are able to fly your ships" but Squad for some reason only gods know why, decided to add the bonus first and then they will add the piloting "eventually"

Is honestly the only way i can see it making some sort of sense, sort of

I bet they dropped that original feature and just decided to do it the easy way of just adding this unrealistic feature instead.

[Northstar1989]

boosting thrust, increasing fuel efficiency - NO

Why not thrust? (efficiency I can understand- there's no way to boost ISP in real life, other than possibly spiking the rocket fuel with certain dangerous additives...) They boost thrust in real life! Some rocket engines can be clocked up to 133% of their nominal thrust rating... (he "official" ratings are often a bit conservative)

Regards,

Northstar

[Capt Snuggler]

another issue would be balancing probes. keeping them relevant while also making kerbals relevant. maybe different probes could have different abilities?

Large probe cores could conduct science and gather multiple samples to return to Kerrin. they could also operate outside of signal range (big probe cores = big computers)

smaller probes could be limited to flight control while in signal range. (control input transmissions required) maybe there could also be input delay?

getting off topic. point is this whole feature has big implications and need to be explained further.

I think most if not all people can agree kerbals changing the isp and handling ect, is bad game design.

hopefully these flames will heat the crucible create better kerbal experience idea.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Wallygator]

Why not thrust? (efficiency I can understand- there's no way to boost ISP in real life, other than possibly spiking the rocket fuel with certain dangerous additives...) They boost thrust in real life! Some rocket engines can be clocked up to 133% of their nominal thrust rating... (he "official" ratings are often a bit conservative)

Ummm, I'm guessing that would be because the engines were likely originally designed with that range of thrust. However, running an engine at higher than spec thrust will probably cause it to have a much shorter service life. All depends of the MISSION PROFILE not the astronaut/cosmonaut. Nothing to do with experience. The shuttle normally went for 110% ME at some point during its ascent (that was part of the mission profile and the main engine design)

After reviewing the threads and the dev update, my opinion is that where the devs seem to have a good understanding of orbital dynamics and in general aerodynamics (since they admit the current are is crap) they DO NOT really understand how space missions are planned and executed. Experience has nothing to do with it - its all about the training and executing the mission profile EXACTLY as intended. IF astronauts went on their merry way and did what they wanted to they would be banned form further flights (as is the case with several crews (Skylab anyone???)

Recommended reading: Digital Apollo by David Mindell and House in Space by Henry Cooper.

[Overfloater]

I'm guessing if a Kerbal has more experience, I will have less trouble keep my ship pointed straight, when following maneuver nodes :-/

If it has more experience, than maybe the ship could perform a maneuver "automatically" itself, as set by me. The more experience the kerbal, the more accurate it pilots.

Experienced kerbals could be like some sort of "autopilot".

[boxman]

It is a video game, it doesn't have to make sense.

Without some reason given, Kerbals have no purpose to exist. Probes are universally easier designs than Kerbal designs, with no need to return them. Literally the only thing they can do that probes cant do better is plant flags.

For this reason, it is better if Kerbals have some impact on rockets other than making them heavier. Because otherwise lighter probe designs are almost always better easier in the Kerbal universe as it works now.

Some of the most popular mods all address the scratch that Kerbals have no reason to be in game.

Then why not just take away all realism and make it purely arcade?? Could even remove physics so that you can just point straight up to get into orbit. Surely that does not matter since it is just a game.....

Edited October 22, 2014 by boxman

[Richy teh space man]

Add me to the chorus of people who aren't sold on this idea.

Increased science, able to repair more stuff on eva, sounds good.

Getting more performance out of the same parts just because of a different Kerbal piloting, doesn't sound as good.

[Broax]

The poll seems pretty much inclined towards not having XP affect ship performance while providing some great alternatives for this system... I just hope they revise the current system according to at least part of the suggestions... :/

[Whirligig Girl]

another issue would be balancing probes. keeping them relevant while also making kerbals relevant. maybe different probes could have different abilities?

Large probe cores could conduct science and gather multiple samples to return to Kerrin. they could also operate outside of signal range (big probe cores = big computers)

smaller probes could be limited to flight control while in signal range. (control input transmissions required) maybe there could also be input delay?

getting off topic. point is this whole feature has big implications and need to be explained further.

I think most if not all people can agree kerbals changing the isp and handling ect, is bad game design.

hopefully these flames will heat the crucible create better kerbal experience idea.

Well, probes are meant to be inferior to Kerbals.

[mattinoz]

I'm guessing if a Kerbal has more experience, I will have less trouble keep my ship pointed straight, when following maneuver nodes :-/

If it has more experience, than maybe the ship could perform a maneuver "automatically" itself, as set by me. The more experience the kerbal, the more accurate it pilots.

Experienced kerbals could be like some sort of "autopilot".

I would think more like a co-pilot than an autopilot.

[Rune]

Main point about it: everybody is against it. Another major point: it's not necessary. Plenty of people have suggested better traits everyone can agree don't break the illusion of real physics. Let me make a summary of the best ones, for each area of interest we would have:

-Science! (Science): that one is the only one we can agree on. Boost science gains/transmission rates.

-Engineering (Funds): A trait about this could be as easy as: +x% funds on recovery. Good care of the equipment means it ends up in better shape for reuse. And/or special EVA fixes.

-Badassness (Reputation): Obviously a reputation-related trait. You look so good under pressure and your stories sell so good, recovering these kerbals gives more rep, while killing them is either a PR disaster (heroes dead!) or could even be lessened (he went in a glorious way).

-Piloting (wonky bonus): Bonus to the reaction wheels on the command pod they are in. If reaction wheels are magic already, we can keep that suspension of disbelief. That also means that the good kerbal pilots are actually better at turning their ships around. Who would have guessed, that makes sense.

-Navigation (core feature that used to be free for every kerbal): We flew without maneuver nodes for a long time. Suborbital/orbital flight doesn't require them. So why not have them be something that only experienced kerbals can provide? You know, like airbreathers or rover wheels now are something only advanced careers can use that at some point weren't in the base game about building and launching rockets around kerbin.

There, the three main currencies touched by traits, I didn't cheat on physics, and there are a couple extra that have a lot of flavor. And I didn't involve SAS codes rewrites, or Mechjeb-like autopilots like some others suggest (and which would be pretty controversial and/or difficult to implement). You would have to decide when building a three-person experienced crew (I assume that's the standard) which currency you don't want boosted if you want a flying-related boost, or maneuver nodes, and the single pilot with "navigation" would give you the current stock gameplay. That means probe cores would have the "navigation" special, which makes sense since they are supposed to have a team of navigators on the ground behind them. They would work out as navigation computers on manned launches, too. And I only had to downgrade the 0-experience gameplay in a way that hurts only interplanetary flights, really, so that's a bonus too.

And an even more important thing: having experience stats not really increase beyond the first step means you will be interested in training more than one crew. That's a big thing, if exp is handled wrong a lot of people are only going to see the gold crew. To illustrate, the opposite of what I advocate would be something like this: to gain +.05% in thrust after each flight. That would mean putting jeb through hundreds of suborbital flights before the first real mission in order to get a super-jeb that can make orbit a ship lift off that shouldn't leave the pad.

Rune. And I'm sure it can be done even better, so please, Mu, don't settle for this mess you told us about. Please!

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rune

[Whirligig Girl]

Why not thrust? (efficiency I can understand- there's no way to boost ISP in real life, other than possibly spiking the rocket fuel with certain dangerous additives...) They boost thrust in real life! Some rocket engines can be clocked up to 133% of their nominal thrust rating... (he "official" ratings are often a bit conservative)

Regards,

Northstar

That's why my suggestion allows a boost that can be tuned by an engineer, rather than an all-around boost in Thrust/Isp; It allows a balance between Thrust and Isp to be fine-tuned by EVA. Higher thrust reduces efficiency.

Edited October 22, 2014 by GregroxMun

[Jouni]

This is just further evidence that Squad's vision of KSP is incompatible with mine. The lack of useful information displays has always been an indicator that something is wrong. The emphasis on reusability in 0.24 made the career mode less interesting for me. Now we hear that kerbal experience will alter the laws of physics.

For me, modded sandbox will continue being the real KSP, as the career mode evolves into a casual arcade game.

[Red Iron Crown]

Gotta say I'm opposed to Kerbal experience affecting ship performance, both from a simulation and gameplay viewpoint. Though I'm not against the idea of kerbal experience in general.

Spacecraft efficiency should be based on how cleverly the player has constructed the ship, period. As the player gets more practice in building ships and choosing parts, their ships will naturally get more efficient. Ship design is a player skill that is rewarded in game already, making kerbal experience affect it is both unrealistic and an unnecessary hurdle.

Piloting skill is also in the realm of the player, not the kerbal. The player learns to better control ships through actually piloting ships in different situations; there's already a natural experience mechanic at play here already as there is with design. Making a skilled player have to grind away at levelling up a character is just frustration for them.

From a simulation perspective, having kerbal experience affect ship efficiency and piloting is bad. Spacecraft are not cars with performance waiting to be unleashed by those willing to void their warranties, nor is an astronaut likely to make performance tweaks that haven't already been discovered by the team of rocket scientists and engineers. Similarly, pilot skill is almost a non-factor in spacecraft performance in real life given that they're almost never piloted manually.

From a gameplay perspective, having kerbal experience affect ship efficiency and piloting is still bad. It makes it harder for new players as levelling up is harder for them and they're more likely to lose kerbals, so they have to play with the handicap of kerbal inexperience longer. It is more tedious for experienced players as they have to grind out those levels to get best performance. It doesn't matter whether such things are implemented as boosts for more experienced kerbals or penalties for inexperienced kerbals, the effect is exactly the same.

Given that Maxmaps has said that traits aren't seen as a good fit for sandbox mode, it makes sense that those traits should only affect career mode mechanics. Allow better science returns, more reputation gains, more funds earned, cheaper strategies, unlocked abilities, that sort of thing.

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

This is disheartening to me. "Simulator" and "fun game" are not mutually exclusive or opposite ends of a spectrum. "Simulator" just means that the underlying physics and mechanics are as realistic as is reasonably possible. A simulator can be a fun and accessible game, it's just a matter of user interface with the underlying physics. To my mind KSP is one of the very best simulators from a fun gameplay perspective; it is so not because it dumbs down the physics or cheats around them but because it provides approachable visualizations and interfaces with them.

Some physics concessions to gameplay are appropriate and even desirable (e.g. throttleable and infinitely restartable engines), but I don't think having a kerbal experience system for the things that naturally improve with player experience is one of them.

[Tygroux]

This is just further evidence that Squad's vision of KSP is incompatible with mine. The lack of useful information displays has always been an indicator that something is wrong. The emphasis on reusability in 0.24 made the career mode less interesting for me. Now we hear that kerbal experience will alter the laws of physics.

For me, modded sandbox will continue being the real KSP, as the career mode evolves into a casual arcade game.

Sadly must agree with this...

I first really enjoyed this game, even stock. Adding some mods to improve the experience...

I actually had some fun playing science(old career) mode, although I quickly went back to sandbox.

The breakup was when I realized I stopped adding mods only to improve the experience, but instead to change it away from squad's vision...

Guys, could we come back to a cool realistishic science-based game?