Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[FreeThinker]

But YOU are flying not the Kerbals. You will improve at docking and other such things. That's the fun of the game, getting better at it.

Well I ment the flight performance would improve, for example having an earo break specialist would increase drag when entering the atmosphere, while a flight pilot would decrease drag when manouvering in the atmosphere, a space pilot would reduce fuel consumpion when performing manouvers in space and a docking specialist would reduce rcs fuel consumption .

Edited October 22, 2014 by FreeThinker

[Jouni]

It's still a simulation. Otherwise it'd mean that if I change the Isp of an engine through the cfg, it'd suddenly stop being a simulation too.

There are two ways to view this. Either it's a simulation, where experienced kerbals have magical abilities that change the laws or physics, or it's an abstraction, where the game mechanics model outcomes instead of processes.

[worir4]

TBH I would be happy with just a log of where the Kerbal has been. And prehaps rep bonus and hits when recovering or killing a Kerbal.

[Trentendegreth]

The problem with it being toggleable as an option is that I want to have a record of my kerbals' accomplishments, but I don't want them to magically make my rockets better.

thats why i stated a toggleable option for each "skill". i feel that anything less than that would not be enugh. in that way you would still get the accomplishments and dont have the boots of +5 thrust. in essence you get what you want, and so do i and so dose someone who only wants the science boost but nothing else. so on and so froth.

Edt: changed there to the, because....reasons

[Majorjim!]

A 3-5% thrust difference (given by Rowsdower as the example of as the max improvement for a max level pilot) won't invalidate 99% of designs. A few craft that work according to razor thin margins, maybe. But 99% of players are not such experts and their shared designs will be just as flyable as before.

Squad really dont seem to have thought this out properly. If its such a tiny margin, ie a small difference in performance, whats the point??

[KerikBalm]

I would only support kerbal experience affecting science and science transmission - and only for certain experiments.

You could have experience modify the stupidity and bravery stats.

Your EVA report won't be very informative if the Kerbal is having a panic attack.

- EVA report from Duna's upper atmosphere: "I saw red out of my peripheral vision, I was too scared to look down"

Your EVA report won't be very informative if the Kerbal is an idiot.

- I looked down, it was very red, with some white stuff and blurs

vs

- I observed faint aurora on the night side at the poles, indicating at least a faint magnetic field, several features of the planet were suggestive of past water flows. Faint clouds were visible over the planets limb.

Likewise:

- Definitely not delicious mint desert

vs

- Detailed description of the mineral grains, type of rock, blah blah blah.

Science transmission boosts should be OK

Rate stupidity/bravery on a scale of 0-1

(1- stupidity+experience)*(1+bravery+experience-Fear)* transmission efficiency

Obviously, each term in () would be capped at a maximum of 1, and fear would be some factor like I guess the game already has, when it determines how the kerbal faces look (scared, happy, composed, etc).

And it would only apply to things probes can't do- surface samples, crew reports, eva reports.

I guess you could have transmission boost from the lab be dependant upon stupidity& experience only (no bravery or fear factor).

Bravery of the kerbonauts could affect reputation gains for the mission.

Maybe add a "charisma" stat, that gets you more rewards -

Its sad, but people would probably be more willing to fund a space program that picks celebrities to lead their missions, rather than some geeky poindexter.

More people would watch space flights if the flight commander was Brad Pitt, and the two other crew were J law and Emma Watson.

So crews would affect science, funding and Reputation, but not thrust, ISP, structural integrity, aerodynamics, etc.

[tater]

FIt *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.

It's worse than that.

The same actual pilot (the player) could do the exact mission 5 times… say he's taking stuff to be built in orbit… someplace. All 5 will arrive with predictably different fuel volumes. (nominal, 1% more, 2% more 3% more, etc).

Make AI piloting a thing (like MechJeb), and if the player CHOSES to let Bill Kerman fly, then they see what happens when he flies, including skill level. Add uncertainty to each maneuver done by AI pilots. Maybe there is an alternate way to set mission goals instead of the player making a node, and the AI pilot doing it? What if you could set the mission goal as an orbit at 30km above the Mun, instead of designing a couple nodes? Then if the first injection is botched by AI, the AI has to do a correction… using more fuel. You see how this can work. The trade off for the player is the ability to let the astronauts do their thing, but he might have to bail them out if they screw up. Which is FUN, actually.

[Hary R]

Well my 2 cents, I like the idea off boosting things with expert kerbals but not the way Mike (Mu) is presenting it.

Science input, well that is normal, a better scientific do better science. Less heat generation, well why not, it never bothered me anyway.

Better fuel efficiency...How ??? Better Thrust... How??? Don't make sense...

Those are the part I didn't like about this week devnote.

How about this, A better pilot will unlock the ability to aim where you land (via a cross on the map for example).... Na that doesn't sound good...

[geb]

There's a lot of criticism of the XP effects here, but I have to say I like the idea of the XP system in general.

So far there's never been much reason to launch with more than a one man pod. You need two crew to run a mobile lab, but that's literally the only time you ever need more than one kerbal on a mission.

With XP and some kind of bonuses to gain, it makes sense to send multiple crew, both for training them up and to get whatever perks the system brings. You could even send huge trains of hitchhiker pods to deliver hundreds of kerbals to the Mun all at once, and try to farm XP training like that. Never run out of veterans again!

[lincourtl]

...how about a sort-of tech-tree for Kerbals? They start out as recruits, with very basic skills, and as they gain experience you can train them to have specific specializations. 2nd tier trainees might be a Scientist, Celebrity, or Engineer (can positively affect the launch and recovery costs). 3rd tier scientists could specialize in orbital or surface science; 3rd tier engineers split into rocket or spaceplane specialization; 3rd tier celebs get MUCH higher rep but also severe penalties if they die or fail.

...and Pilots. Pilots should also be a 'class'. Instead of altering the physics of the game with magic boosts though, Kerbal Pilots could do things like execute maneuver nodes. 2nd tier pilots can only do in-SOI maneuvers. 3rd tier pilots can execute Planet-Moon transfers. Final tier they could execute interplanetary maneuvers. Maybe you could even have specializations for rockets and spaceplanes, or rover pilots even....point being, that there are ways to utilize Kerbals' experience without resorting to ridiculous RPG magic buffs (and this thread proves it isn't popular anyway.)

I very much like this idea. It's much more refined than what I mentioned in the devnote thread.

[CaptainKipard]

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

This particular example is great! Mostly because it's completely sensible. There are a lot of others in this thread that share that characteristic. Just think of something that makes sense IRL. It's not rocket science.

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.

So Harvester had to read up on orbital mechanics and rocket science before designing this game. I feel like that's the main reason the game got so popular. It caters to a specific niche of science nerds. But maybe the devs have gotten a little bit too comfortable now and are trying to play the economics game instead, by trying to appeal to a wider audience. Maybe it's just me but I feel like that's a really short-sighted decision. I'm certainly not going to look forward to their next game if they decide to make it as generic as possible. When you have young kids excited about delta-v calculations and TWR, and then you start making these arcady additions then there's something really wrong here.

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.

A turd is a turd no matter how small.

if x feature is added will i love this game less? my answer is no i will not.

And my answer is a resounding yes. I'm quite baffled by this comment. It smacks of loyalty for the sake of loyalty.

for those on the realism side, the above difficulty settings should solve your problem

One of the worst things a game designer can do is to artificially scale difficulty with multipliers. It's lazy and gamers are quite wise to it. Difficulty should emerge from the game itself and its depth. Take Crusader Kings 2 for example. It has difficulty scaling but the most obvious and sensible ways it deals with difficulty it is by giving you a choice of your starting character. You can start as a lowly count in an area full of hostile neighbours or an emperor in control of dozens of counties with no one to oppose you. The analogy breaks down because it's a grand strategy game, but you get the idea.

options

I can't really argue against the options to turn off certain things in the way that the Civilisation series does it, but honestly I just think that this whole experience system can be made a lot more sensible and immersive and in the process be a lot more fun.

[space_lorax]

I think this is a bad idea, if only because now " I landed on Tylo" has a different meaning for everyone. 5% is a lot of difference for thrust and fuel use. A long time ago I read Squad was considering making randomized solar systems, but decided against it for that very reason - it makes it hard to share your accomplishments and techniques with the community.

Maybe just stick to reputation/funds/science?

Or Jeb can't fly more advanced ships until he has mastered simple ones? (This would be tricky, could do it by crew cockpit type, or by engine used)

How about making them better "miners" of whatever the resources is going to be? Thats a part of the simulation where personal experience might matter.

Maybe if you used Jeb to fulfill a bunch of Kerbodyne contracts, they would pay him more for the next one since they know he will get it done? Just keep it away from the physics.

[Capt Snuggler]

There's a lot of criticism of the XP effects here, but I have to say I like the idea of the XP system in general.

So far there's never been much reason to launch with more than a one man pod. You need two crew to run a mobile lab, but that's literally the only time you ever need more than one kerbal on a mission.

With XP and some kind of bonuses to gain, it makes sense to send multiple crew, both for training them up and to get whatever perks the system brings. You could even send huge trains of hitchhiker pods to deliver hundreds of kerbals to the Mun all at once, and try to farm XP training like that. Never run out of veterans again!

The criticism is not aimed at the XP system it self but more towards how its going to be implemented. ie pilot skill making craft perform better than they otherwise would. perform being: turn sharper, go faster, be more fuel efficient ect ect.

doing it this way would change the "feeling" of a craft depending which kerbal is at the controls. this is bad. the craft was built by you and is flown by you.

on top of that there have been lengthy threads discussing why this is a bad way to implement XP and they have been around for a long time. AND there are better ideas out there on the forums.

squad have oddly chosen to ignore these numerous lengthy discussions about how XP should and shouldn't be handled.

[Tail_TL]

The smartest thing they could've done with the Kerbal XP is they could of made the small parts (I.E. Solar Panels, Batteries) detachable and attachable like in the KAS mod..once they are experienced enough.. Basically implement a simpler version of KAS.. But instead they went with an idiotic thing that no one wanted... Good job to the ignorant dev who worked on it. Kudos to you...

Edit: Btw I don't know if anyone else already suggested this.. and maybe someone probably did, but I ain't going to check 30 darn pages to find out.

[Bishop149]

I really hope Squad is reading this, there have already been some excellent suggestions in here about how better to implement a Kerb experience system instead of than the rather silly and simplistic "+10 jockstrap of ISP" approach described.

[lincourtl]

When you have young kids excited about delta-v calculations and TWR, and then you start making these arcady additions then there's something really wrong here.

Yes! This!

[JayKay]

Maybe rather than good Kerbals improving things, dumb Kerbals should sabotage things instead...

[Laie]

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,

Turning it off would be the last resort of the desperate. I really hope Squad changes the implementation to something more agreeable. It's not as if experience was a bad idea from the outset, on the contrary.

Selective throttling of only those engines that need it, rather than the whole vessel? Excellent. Better science reports, more accurate readings from instruments? Great. A wide smile boosting reputation? Wonderful. A generic increase in thrust or ISP for no apparent reason? Please don't.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Laie

[Noro]

And next there'll be kerbal mages and kerbal druids, able to cast spell making pods to fly witout fuel and engines.

How about NO.

[PDCWolf]

This particular example is great! Mostly because it's completely sensible. There are a lot of others in this thread that share that characteristic. Just think of something that makes sense IRL. It's not rocket science.

But it doesn't work like that. IRL, if you throttle down a rocket engine, there's less pressure on the combustion chamber and thus less exhaust particle velocity, meaning overall less ISP. This is not simulated in KSP, but it doesn't mean it is suddenly logical.

And my answer is a resounding yes. I'm quite baffled by this comment. It smacks of loyalty for the sake of loyalty.

Now that's the kind of community no one should look forward to have, people that don't mind what you do to your game, it's almost the same as fanboys. I also dislike the "make it an option" because it feels like breaking down the discussion to a point where people go "you take it as it is, good or bad, or you turn it off" instead of trying to actually make things better. There are indeed things that would fare very well as options (difficulty related ones for example like relays, reentry heating or life support once they come to existence) but this is not one of them.

[Capt Snuggler]

I would only support kerbal experience affecting science and science transmission - and only for certain experiments.

You could have experience modify the stupidity and bravery stats.

Your EVA report won't be very informative if the Kerbal is having a panic attack.

- EVA report from Duna's upper atmosphere: "I saw red out of my peripheral vision, I was too scared to look down"

Your EVA report won't be very informative if the Kerbal is an idiot.

- I looked down, it was very red, with some white stuff and blurs

vs

- I observed faint aurora on the night side at the poles, indicating at least a faint magnetic field, several features of the planet were suggestive of past water flows. Faint clouds were visible over the planets limb.

Likewise:

- Definitely not delicious mint desert

vs

- Detailed description of the mineral grains, type of rock, blah blah blah.

Science transmission boosts should be OK

Rate stupidity/bravery on a scale of 0-1

(1- stupidity+experience)*(1+bravery+experience-Fear)* transmission efficiency

Obviously, each term in () would be capped at a maximum of 1, and fear would be some factor like I guess the game already has, when it determines how the kerbal faces look (scared, happy, composed, etc).

And it would only apply to things probes can't do- surface samples, crew reports, eva reports.

I guess you could have transmission boost from the lab be dependant upon stupidity& experience only (no bravery or fear factor).

Bravery of the kerbonauts could affect reputation gains for the mission.

Maybe add a "charisma" stat, that gets you more rewards -

Its sad, but people would probably be more willing to fund a space program that picks celebrities to lead their missions, rather than some geeky poindexter.

More people would watch space flights if the flight commander was Brad Pitt, and the two other crew were J law and Emma Watson.

So crews would affect science, funding and Reputation, but not thrust, ISP, structural integrity, aerodynamics, etc.

This is nice. though id replace bravery/stupidity with Flight Experience being the governing attribute that dictates how the kerbal performs other tasks.

If a kerbal with high science skill has little flight experience/skill they cannot write informative crew reports while screaming or blacking out in flight. However if their feet are planted firmly on the ground they can.

alternatively if the kerbal has great flight experience/skill but is useless with science they will calmly write: "we're still in space. its cold"

same goes for engineering stuff. transmissions, repairs, construction ect. they do a better job with inflight tasks if they have good flight skill.

I can't really argue against the options to turn off certain things in the way that the Civilisation series does it, but honestly I just think that this whole experience system can be made a lot more sensible and immersive and in the process be a lot more fun.

this.

I also dislike the "make it an option" because it feels like breaking down the discussion to a point where people go "you take it as it is, good or bad, or you turn it off" instead of trying to actually make things better. There are indeed things that would fare very well as options (difficulty related ones for example like relays, reentry heating or life support once they come to existence) but this is not one of them.

exactly! I hate the idea of "this game mechanic is bad - just turn it off"... no fix the bad game mechanic.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[geb]

squad have oddly chosen to ignore these numerous lengthy discussions about how XP should and shouldn't be handled.

It's only the engine enhancements that are the problem. The system for gaining experience points by taking crew out on missions and having their achievements recorded seems like it's going to be a lot of fun. I thoroughly approve of that part of it, and look forward to playing with it.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

first off, Laie's response seemed more passionate than hostile.

I think the XP stats changing the craft performance goes beyond difficulty settings. its fundamentally flawed and does not reflect the core concepts of the delightful physics playground that is KSP.

more over XP = better engine performance, handling etc, comes across as really lazy shallow game mechanic.

Squad are better than that. KSP is better than that.

Kerbal XP can be done better.

I'm not sure how Kerbal XP can be done at all if you take away virtually every avenue where it can actually affect anything.

After all, if one's position is effectively that you, the player, are playing the game and "the kerbal" has no impact, then whether the kerbal levels up or not is irrelevant to anything and everything. It serves no purpose because the kerbal doesn't "do" anything to begin with to alter.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[tater]

The smartest thing they could've done with the Kerbal XP is they could of made the small parts (I.E. Solar Panels, Batteries) detachable and attachable like in the KAS mod..once they are experienced enough.. Basically implement a simpler version of KAS.. But instead they went with an idiotic thing that no one wanted... Good job to the ignorant dev who worked on it. Kudos to you...

Edit: Btw I don't know if anyone else already suggested this.. and maybe someone probably did, but I ain't going to check 30 darn pages to find out.

This kind of comment helps no one, and I think that the people that hate the new "feature" idea are not even remotely suggesting anything negative about the devs. Good game design is hard. Really. The simulation aspect is far easier, and easier to do well when more "realistic" because they then know how things are supposed to work without introducing problems.

A good rule for science fiction in general is to "break as few laws of physics as possible." Usually the ante level is some sort of FTL travel. Breaking regular physics has a ripple effect, as the tech to do that easily becomes scary (any sufficiently interesting space drive is also a powerful weapon).

We all would like to have Kerbals matter, the trick is to come up with constructive ideas how this can be done without breaking physics.

[juanml82]

So Harvester had to read up on orbital mechanics and rocket science before designing this game. I feel like that's the main reason the game got so popular. It caters to a specific niche of science nerds. But maybe the devs have gotten a little bit too comfortable now and are trying to play the economics game instead, by trying to appeal to a wider audience. Maybe it's just me but I feel like that's a really short-sighted decision. I'm certainly not going to look forward to their next game if they decide to make it as generic as possible. When you have young kids excited about delta-v calculations and TWR, and then you start making these arcady additions then there's something really wrong here.

You mean it's a mistake to cater to a wide audience instead of a very small niche of customers, specially in a product like software in which you do not have variable costs? Because, really, the mistake would be to try to limit the customer base, even if that makes some veteran players feel less elitists or something.

With that said, xp affecting ISP or thrust is a mistake. It's not just a matter of realism, it's a matter of immersion and coherence. There is no explanation as to why a pilot could make a rocket more powerful other than magic.