Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[Northstar1989]

I have to point out that thrust CAN be overclocked in real life. Often, rocket engines are CAPABLE of exceeding 100% of their "nominal" thrust. Whether it's safe to do so is another thing entirely.

What I suggest is that ISP be left entirely alone (changing it would break the laws of physics), but that if the devs *insist* on tweaking rocket stats, thrust be able to increased above the "normal" maximum *at the expense of a random explosion risk*. That is, overclocking the engine *might* cause it to explode. More experienced Kerbals could have the ability to automatically shut down an engine instead of having it explode.

That is the *only* feasibly way I can see to affect TWR/ISP, and even then, I don't particularly like it. I'd prefer if Kerbal XP was just a badge system, perhaps with a few minor "perks" like auto-bailout instead of dying with a destroyed capsule... Part-editing due to XP should be absolutely out-of-the-question in my opinion.

Regards,

Northstar

[DunaRocketeer]

Just throwing my voice into the chorus; I haven't made any complaints about new features before and am usually content to adapt my gameplay with each successive patch, but this parts performance thing... doesn't make any sense.

[fairytalefox]

Boosting Isp or thrust is just stupid.

More skilled pilots should be able to pilot BIGGER rockets. You want moar boosters (engines, passengers, docking ports, solar batteries)? You need better pilots. Best of the best ones can make anything fly.

Also I think it would be good to limit the automatic probe cores in their ability to pilot things. Like, Tier I core can only work with up to X tons vessels and operate up to Y science tools. Tier II can do more, etc. And no "unlimited" cores: all really big missions have to be piloted.

Edited October 22, 2014 by fairytalefox

[Red Iron Crown]

I have to point out that thrust CAN be overclocked in real life. Often, rocket engines are CAPABLE of exceeding 100% of their "nominal" thrust. Whether it's safe to do so is another thing entirely.

Example? I don't count the SSME as the >100% thrust versions were refined engines being measured against the originals. It is most decidedly not the experience or skill of the pilot that made it possible, but instead the engineers and rocket scientists building better versions of the same engine.

[Xaiier]

I think everyone is overblowing this whole thing way too much. At most I would expect 10% boosts due to experienced Kerbals, if that, this isn't some lvl 99 pro leet skillz 16x dmg in sneak 9001% boost, its just a small reward for keeping your Kerbals alive, so you can squeeze a little extra out of your ships or get a little more margin of error with an experienced crew.

[Richy teh space man]

Just a thought, why not make it something that's tweakable like the difficulty settings? That way people can choose to have - or not have - parts of the experience that seem unbalanced.

[DunaRocketeer]

Just a thought, why not make it something that's tweakable like the difficulty settings? That way people can choose to have - or not have - parts of the experience that seem unbalanced.

That would be good, I agree.

[Wallygator]

Pilots do not fly rockets. Rockets fly pilots. If anyone can identify a moment in space history where a "pilot" flew a rocket from the launchpad to orbit then I will give them a bit of rep.

[m4v]

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).

We can already do that with strategies, so adding that is just some more of the same without anything new.

-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.

KSP engines are pretty magical, how is that boosting reaction wheels is alright but engines is not?

-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.

oh great, so my crew roster will limit the stuff I can do. Why is that when players think about gameplay mechanics the only concepts they can think is railroading others?

boring.

[Whirligig Girl]

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.

Well that's pretty cold. Anyway, reusability in KSP actually has a similar effect to real life. We just haven't actually gotten around (as humans) to building many reusable vehicles. The other idea is the "Big Dumb Booster", which also works well in KSP, considering that SRBs are dirt-cheap. The closest thing to Big Dumb Booster that we've ever had was perhaps the N1 Rocket. According to wikipedia: "In general, Russian rockets are closer to the BDB concept than their US counterparts. US rockets tend to be built of the most modern, lightest materials available and to extremely tight tolerances, using often purpose-built custom parts, resulting in great expense. Many of them require very careful handling to avoid being damaged while on the ground. Russian rockets, on the other hand, tend to be built more heavily, and are easier to handle. They are built with larger margins of strength and to looser tolerances."

Although the game makes no distinction between the materials used; but I can prove using mathematics that using several Jumbo-64s is more expensive than using one S3-14400.

-Liquid Fuel in a Jumbo-64 is 2880 LF, S3-14400 has 6480 LF.

-2.25 Jumbo-64s have 6480 LF.

-2.25 Jumbo-64s cost $28800.

-1 S3-14400 costs $22800.

-22800<28800

Therefore Using Jumbo-64s is more costly than using S3-14400s.

[Red Iron Crown]

Although the game makes no distinction between the materials used; but I can prove using mathematics that using several Jumbo-64s is more expensive than using one S3-14400.

-Liquid Fuel in a Jumbo-64 is 2880 LF, S3-14400 has 6480 LF.

-2.25 Jumbo-64s have 6480 LF.

-2.25 Jumbo-64s cost $28800.

-1 S3-14400 costs $22800.

-22800<28800

Therefore Using Jumbo-64s is more costly than using S3-14400s.

That is offset to a degree by the orange tanks having better mass ratios and thus delivering more delta-V per unit of fuel.

[Javster]

How does a good pilot make a booster work faster?

[Trentendegreth]

look i find myself posting here again as a "voice of reason" im not trying to be offensive, belittling or otherwise this is my two cents, that is all.

we can all agree that we love this game yes?

with that question and hopefully been answered we must then ask, if x feature is added will i love this game less? my answer is no i will not. but this is just my point of veiw. and from what i can gather from the posts on this thread alone there is a lot of passion in this game. and that's not a bad thing, my opinion on the KerbXP is simple yes put it in, all of it, why am i ok with it you might ask. simple i dont see the xp of a kerbal changing the Physics of the game, i see it as x engine has x thrust and x isp, with this inexperienced kerbal in the seat i get 3% less efficiency from that engine not because the engine itself has 3% less efficiency, but because the kerbal in the seat just shat himself and upon said mess, bumped the stick a nudge, and then corrected himself quickly, for those who say "Its Me That Pilots " i say i respectfully disagree, the kerbals are the pilots, and up until now there was no indication of that, no mechanic that dictated that, now that were getting one it puts it into a perspective that some may not have had, and it can be wrenching to say the least. but having an in depth difficulty setting, say a check mark next to each "skill"

y/n science return

Y/n isp increase

Y/n thrust increase

there now you get to play how you want to, and i get to play how you want to...

now then. to address some of the particulars in this thread that i thought were bordering on toxic, while im not going to direct quote as i feel that targets specific people, and in this particular instance is not respectful.

for those on the realism side, the above difficulty settings should solve your problem, and thereby the issues and arguments you put forth are solved, play your way, ill play mine. for those who have stated or have otherwise implied, that the games direction and the devs vision of the game doesn't match yours, and using that as an argument against the choices the devs are making is, and forgive me if this comes off as harsh, Childish. so what if you don't get it your way, i don't always get it mine as well, that's why i suggested the above difficulty options (or similar but not any less in depth) that way you do get your way.... and so do I, and if they don't add the options, or its blanketed that's OK with me too, personally, i would like to shut off the Science skill, or i could just tweak the science gains to give me less, from what i have been seeing there focused on giving the player options, and a lot of them, more so than say space engineers, or worse destiny, with its illusion of options. so in the long run well be OK, there not going to leave us in the dust, and they haven't been ignoring us. there just giving us options. and that's never been a bad thing.

[Laie]

I like the idea. I think everyone is overthinking the amount of impact this will have. It's going to lead to situations where a good pilot can save you a few units of fuel will prove helpful in situations where you're just about to run out, an engineer can make that RAPIER ascent more smooth since you don't need to think about throttling down a percent or two to prevent overheating

*cough* Eve ascent *cough*

For my vessel, I've written a kOS script that will throttle the more fuel-hungry engines while the Aerospikes keep running at full thrust. This improves effective ISP by only a few percent, but the difference in performance is huge.

[Guest]

Don't have time to read the entire thread this morning, but I want to get my 2 cents in. I vote no on this one. Squad has said they want the game to be the same for everyone and I like that. The way Mu describes kerbal experience, it would make the piloting experience different for everyone and I don't like that.

Now, if they would like to make an add-on that works with mechjeb or something similar to affect the performance of the autopilot, I would be OK with that.

[Capt Snuggler]

Just going to beat this drum again over here.

If you want a "pilot skill" for the kerbals then it should boost their ability to stay conscious during high G-force. If the kerbals blackout - you, the player, effectively blackout.

This would complement the players piloting skill and their ability to manage G-force.

also white suit kerbals need training to get certified to pilot different command pods. training flight time would be gained from co-piloting a particular pod with a certified kerbal or one of the Orange suits.

once the white suit has clocked up the required flight time in a command pod. they get certified and can fly that pod solo from then on.

[Laie]

we can all agree that we love this game yes?

Like Hell I Do.

with that question and hopefully been answered we must then ask, if x feature is added will i love this game less?

In case of x feature being purported "skills" that bend the laws of physics, the answer is yes.

Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should.

Unless Jeb is wearing his Boots of Thrust +5. Thanks, but no thanks. That would no longer be the KSP that I love.

[whaleberg]

I would like to add my strong opposition to kerbal experience changing thrust or isp in any way when a player is in control of the vessel. Other things like science yield and lab efficiency would be great.

I would be very happy to see a kerbal autopilot system, where kerbals improve their plotting efficiency up to the level of the human player over time.

[Overfloater]

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

Kind of.

In that case there should be an option to "override control" for those who like to pilot themselves.

I'd say they could make Jebediah "experienced" enough for you to trust him to pilot your ship himself.

This would be a valid reason for you to keep certain kerbals alive.

Experience should affect kerbals' piloting, NOT ship component stats!

[Rune]

We can already do that with strategies, so adding that is just some more of the same without anything new.

Strategies are balanced so you end up losing more in other areas than you gain. This would be a flat bonus which bad side is that it can be killed and takes up crew space. By extrapolating from your comment: why add strategies if you can already get more science by doing more missions? It adds variety and a purpose to kerbals.

KSP engines are pretty magical, how is that boosting reaction wheels is alright but engines is not?

You got me there... only ksp engines are not that magical. Their stats are crappy enough that they could be very deep-throtabble, restartable LH2/LOX engines with really low gimbal ranges, their low isp is just because of the stupidly short nozzles underexpanding and the throttling requirements (at least 95% difference) screwing the efficiency by requiring a large pressure range in the combustion chamber. The only glaringly wrong thing about them is the thrust-isp curve with atmosphere, and that could be changed with the aerodynamics overhaul.

But my suggestion comes more from this: a flat "+5 to reaction wheel power in the cockpits crewed by this kerbal" is easier to implement, and it will make your ship truly easier to pilot and land. Call me weird, but for me there is just no freaking way a kerbal piloting can make the fuel burn at a higher temperature or pressure for a given throttle setting, while on the other hand, the idea Jeb has an easier time keeping the ship pointing at the maneuver marker during a burn, or the retrograde velocity marker during a landing, is easier to stomach. It will still save fuel, mind you, but because I find easier to pilot the ship that is supposed to be piloted by the good pilot. And nobody will scream at you because they can't reproduce the performance without that pilot when you post the file up. I stand by it, and the multitude of comments about thrust, isp, physics taking exceptions, and ship exchanges being affected by experience seems to avail my opinion. Which still, is only an opinion, of course you are entitled to yours.

oh great, so my crew roster will limit the stuff I can do. Why is that when players think about gameplay mechanics the only concepts they can think is railroading others?

boring.

Not really, since a single probe Core would get you current stock gameplay. In career. In sanDbox, stuff stays the way it is. How is that limiting? Still, I just mostly compiled the thoughts of others, I think my only original thing is the "navigation" trait being the ability to set maneuver nodes and coming in stock probe cores as well as an experience trait.

Rune. I still think that is a cool experience perk, BTW.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Rune

[Trentendegreth]

Like Hell I Do.

In case of x feature being purported "skills" that bend the laws of physics, the answer is yes.

Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should.

Unless Jeb is wearing his Boots of Thrust +5. Thanks, but no thanks. That would no longer be the KSP that I love.

than i would say, "with that being said, with the proposed difficulty options, turn it off, now Jeb's new boots of thrust +5 are non existent, so whats the problem." Options my friend options, and opinions, my friend opinions, they are always nice, there is still no need to get hostile. we just share a diffrence in opinion on what makes a good game, and in my opinion "game" is the key word...

[Ippo]

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?

[...]

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

Friendly reminder that, if you follow the main quest from the start, in Skyrim you kill your first dragon at level 3, lever 4 tops, since skyrim uses an even dumber system than this.

It *does* violate physics. If you perform exactly the same burn, exactly in the same spot and at the same time, but using different pilots, you'll get different trajectories. This does in fact violate physics, period.

And it looks like I really need to get working on the perk system now, since my worst fears have come true in the latest devnote.

[Jouni]

Well that's pretty cold. Anyway, reusability in KSP actually has a similar effect to real life. We just haven't actually gotten around (as humans) to building many reusable vehicles. The other idea is the "Big Dumb Booster", which also works well in KSP, considering that SRBs are dirt-cheap.

My problem with reusability is that it starts at a ridiculous 100% level, making it obligatory for every mission, if funds are going to matter at all. Designing and flying a fully reusable launcher may be fun for the first few times, but after that it becomes a chore I'd like to avoid.

A simple way to fix reusability: Recovery starts at -10%. If you land on the runway, you still have to pay 10% extra to recover the debris. If you land in the 80% recovery zone, you'll have to pay 30%. If you don't pay, you lose reputation. Then there are several tech tree nodes (recycling, advanced recycling, refitting, advanced refitting) that ultimately increase the recovery percentage to somewhere in the 70-90% range. A player may choose to use the same ship for multiple missions, but reentry damage will make that risky, unless the ship is refitted between the missions.

[Majorjim!]

Hi all,

good thing I have firefighting training!!

Anyway,

I assume this crazy experience system will only effect career mode right?

[Trentendegreth]

My problem with reusability is that it starts at a ridiculous 100% level, making it obligatory for every mission, if funds are going to matter at all. Designing and flying a fully reusable launcher may be fun for the first few times, but after that it becomes a chore I'd like to avoid.

A simple way to fix reusability: Recovery starts at -10%. If you land on the runway, you still have to pay 10% extra to recover the debris. If you land in the 80% recovery zone, you'll have to pay 30%. If you don't pay, you lose reputation. Then there are several tech tree nodes (recycling, advanced recycling, refitting, advanced refitting) that ultimately increase the recovery percentage to somewhere in the 70-90% range. A player may choose to use the same ship for multiple missions, but reentry damage will make that risky, unless the ship is refitted in between the missions.

i agree with your logic, and would put forth the thought that, the devs did state that balance passes were coming as well. which may or may not change this, if it dosn't change then mabey ill tweak configs, or add a mod that changes this, ether or is fine with me.