Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[Pecan]

Wooo, I'm away for a day and there's 37 pages of this. TL;DR I'm afraid, so I'll just respond to the OP and the post immediately above (as I start typing):

In reverse order ...

...It's a MINUSCULE perk! I would say it's even less than 5%...

1. How do you know?

2. "Even" a 5% payload-ratio increase would be very significant in rocket design.

(Bearing in mind there could be significant things I haven't read throughout this thread, so feel free to give me a slap-update ^^).

OP:

1. No, I don't like the idea for the commonly-stated reasons that component performance isn't changed by pilot ability and that it would make sharing .craft files problematical. If we properly understand what Mu said.

2. What I would like to see is >>MECHJEB<< !! (Way to start an argument if it hasn't already happened in this thread) because ...

• No sane space-programme would expect everything to be worked-out by eye, on-the-fly. So we need the statistics.
  
• The ability to plot a course and fly it accurately IS something a skilled crew would be expected to do better. So experience counts.
  
• Plotting and executing manoeuvres more accurately will automatically result in more efficient operations. So there's no need for artificial 'cheats'.
  
• Navigation and steering can easily be adjusted for 'experience' without affecting the physics of the vehicles themselves. So .craft files and technical/performance specs are standard.
  
• It'll stop claims that 'MechJeb is cheating'. So everyone can have fun their own way.
  

3. The way I would see it working is this - If you want to fly yourself you do. If you want to 'hand off' to IVA or ground-control you do. While controlled by vehicle or ground crew (for unmanned probes) 'autopilot' is working - with a randomised 'reaction time' and error in the navigation node placement, burn start/end times and steering based on their experience. Presumably, you'd train 'ground crew' pilots in much the same way as 'astronauts' so there shouldn't be any additional complexity there. You could extend this to 'intelligent' deployment of solar-panels, disabling/enabling electricity-consuming equipment, pumping of fuel between tanks/docked craft, etc. but that's probably too much trouble for both the developers and the players.

4. This adds experience and autopilot to the game for those that want it in what I think is a logical and seamless manner. It would even be possible to link autopilot functions to the tech-tree, still affected by experience such that, for instance, ground crews may initially plot manoeuvre nodes (something that should be worked out by ground control before or during the mission anyway) but not execute them, because the radio/telemetry isn't sufficient for remote guidance. Conversely flight crews could initially execute nodes (because they're in the vehicle) but not plot them because they don't have the computing power, astronavigation information and team of physicists/mathematicians to work it all out. In both cases 'reaction time', or initiative, would dictate how quickly they could react during 'critical' manoeuvres such as docking and landing.

ETA: Oh yeah - and messing about with funds, science and reputation is all fine since they don't change physics. They don't add anything that strategies don't though either, so experience should do something different.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Pecan

[Franklin]

I live with the constant fear of devs not caring much about what is being talked about in the forums because they give too much importance to that bug tracker, which most people don't know about. I myself visited it a few times, but I don't want to use it, feels awkward and overwhelming.

The thing is, I looked for discussion on the proposed experience system on the bug tracker and it's nowhere to be found. And similar design complaints have been made there regarding aero, ISP, water, etc. and they've been gatekeepered away as "not bugs".

[hellion13]

Im looking forward to it. This kinda sounds sort of like what Xcom has. Gonna make losing Kerbals a little harder

[CalculusWarrior]

I personally am very excited for the experience system; kerbals will now have history and we'll have more motivation to keep them alive and choose our favourite kerbals out over others. I've always thought that the kerbal experience system ought to work a little like XCOM's in how kerbals level up. However, that game is not quite KSP, as many have noted it is the player who flies the ship. There is no place in the game where it tells you that 'Bobfrey has a 60% chance of making this burn correctly, do you want to fire the engine?'. And I don't think there ever should be, or anything similar to that. I like being the one to determine whether my ship will land properly on the Mun or not, it gives me more of a sense of accomplishment. I'm also very against buffing the performance of the engines, as I want my ship to perform just as well regardless of which save I fly it in, and which kerbal is piloting it.

One of the arguments for the increased thrust/isp is that they'll be so small as to not affect gameplay much. My response to that is, why even include the buff in the first place? I want kerbal xp to really matter, and give me a well-defined reason to put more experienced kerbals on my vessels.

Additionally, I think that different kerbals ought to have different jobs. You can't expect Jebediah to fly, collect science, and maintain the ship. This also gives a reason to use multiple kerbals on a mission. At the moment, you could send one kerbal all the way out to Eeloo and get just as much science as if you'd sent a large expedition, only at much less expense and weight. Instead, if you can choose to have Jeb fly the ship, Bill handle the repairs, and Bob collect science, this would greatly improve experience, in my opinion.

GregroxMun had an excellent list of things which the kerbal 'jobs' could look like:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97769-Opinions-on-Kerbal-Experience?p=1495214&viewfull=1#post1495214

Other good ideas I've seen tossed around include adding a KAS-like functionality for your experienced engineers, a good pilot could give you extra flight data like Kerbal Engineer does, or even the game limits maneuver nodes until you have a properly-trained navigator onboard. Something I wouldn't mind may be that a 'test-pilot' kerbal would be able to have his ship survive higher-speed crashes than a newbie. Now this is starting to edge back into 'magic' territory, but crash tolerences aren't as hard-and-fast physically as isp or thrust are. You often see this sort of thing in stories (oh, x managed to land this ship safely, when no one else could) and it would add more to the narrative in my opinion. (plus it would give a good reason to use different kerbals to test your ships than fly them, motivating a larger kerbonaut roster)

So tl;dr, I'm strongly against messing with engine parameters or any physically well-defined values, and would like to see different kerbals specialize in different things, making each kerbal matter more in your space program, rather than just sticking Jebediah on every ship because he gives them a boost.

[GusTurbo]

The thing is, I looked for discussion on the proposed experience system on the bug tracker and it's nowhere to be found. And similar design complaints have been made there regarding aero, ISP, water, etc. and they've been gatekeepered away as "not bugs".

Well to be fair, if they're design constraints or design compromises, they aren't actually bugs.

Guys, remember that the more insignificant you make the change just to justify adding the feature as badly thought as it already is, the more useless the feature turns out to be, and will end up taking space in dev time for, as you said, an insignificant change.

I live with the constant fear of devs not caring much about what is being talked about in the forums because they give too much importance to that bug tracker, which most people don't know about. I myself visited it a few times, but I don't want to use it, feels awkward and overwhelming.

You should give the bug tracker a shot. It does seem like a good way to report bugs, though it's not the best for discussion or feedback on features.

[Robotengineer]

IIRC, admin building strategies were going to reduce the drag on rockets, and that didn't happen. I wouldn't be surprised of the current KXP ideas change before release.

I have been thinking about how Kerbals will gain XP, I think that they should get it for doing things, like being first to orbit, etc. But the more times a Kerbal does something, the less XP s/he gets, along the lines of y=1-x/x+1. Where y is the percentage (in decimal) of XP and x is the number of times that a Kerbal is in that scenario (i.e surface EVA on the Mün.)

[Rune]

so i get where the "no" crowd is coming from, really, I do.

would the "no" crowd agree that Options would be the middle ground between what you want, and what us in the "yes" crowd would like?

with that you can have your realistic needs filled and we can have our fun as well. and as I've said before, a simple check mark for each skill in the difficulty panel would suffice, nothing less though...

But the thing is, it can be done better! We are not arguing against kerbal experience, we are arguing about kerbal experience impacting on ship stats like thrust and isp. I would even grant torque stats, though that would be a bit of a Pandora's box. As some other people have said, KSP deserves a better thought out experience system. My suggestion is to make the maneuver nodes part of that, and the currencies that are already part of the career experience. Perhaps play with the recovery mechanic, and I certainly want to have a record of what my kerbals do. After that, sure, make it and option for the sandbox-oriented players. But I want to track my Jeb's progress through the kerbol system and what skills he ends up getting, I just don't want to break physics laws in doing so, when I could be gaining cool bonuses that make sense.

Rune. I love the idea of experience... I just don't like where this particular implementation is going. Like, apparently, 60 to 85% of the other players, if you go by the poll numbers and depending on what the indifferent thought!

[pxi]

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.

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

In this context, will it be possible to toggle the availability of each of these perks when starting a new game? Because if so, 99.9% of any objection I might have goes out the window at that point.

Edit:

I do want to stress that I'm actually strongly in favour of the perks system in general, just that there might be one or two particular perks that I'm not too fond of, and might want to not have them available.

I am not suggesting that Mu throw away a lot of hard work, on the contrary, I appreciate his efforts, and look forward to seeing the results. It just seems to me that there is a relatively painless way to accommodate both sides of a divide that I think we can all agree exists.

Edited October 22, 2014 by pxi

[Franklin]

For the record I'm actually all for an element where Kerbals pilot themselves. I like the idea of having the option of being able to fly a rocket completely against my own ability and entrusting Kerbals to do it themselves other times, that seems like a fun proposal.

As long as their ability to do so revolves around actual skill-based elements (maintaining max velocity, staging accuracy, over-shooting nodes, docking skill, etc.) and not rocket performance-based elements I'm all for it. Sounds fun.

It just seems like Ferram has been the closest to nail it, that someone along the road decided astronauts need functional experience (why this is more important than like, a life support system or re-entry danger is beyond me) and this magic system was the cheapest/easiest way to do it.

[Wallygator]

Mr Aldrin did a fantastic job on his first spacewalk in Gemini. This was not because he "Experienced" spacewalks it was because he studied the results of other spacewalks and formulated a plan and training approach to be successful (remember underwater training?)

Training is 10x more powerful than experience. And my opinion is the in-game dynamics should reflect something similar.

Now... Experience is something entirely different. Gagarin was the first human to "experience" space flight. He was immediately pulled from space flight activities and paraded about the world for fame and reputation boosts for the soviet space program. The Soviets did not want to risk the loss of a single person with such important experience.

Please discuss...

[r_rolo1]

My opinion on the subject is simple: I'm ok with the experience system IF kerbals can pilot ships autonomously AND if parts can malfunction ( malfunction, not necessarily explode ), thus making any kerbal expertise valuable. But if the only things XP gives are actually changing physical parameters, you are basically parroting the kerbal version of The Secret : if you believe very very hard, the laws of physics will bend to your will . Not good for the stated goal of being physically accurate , I guess

Edited October 22, 2014 by r_rolo1

[Dreamixpl]

I really hate the experience concept, i just won't repeat what others said. But i hate even more the "Wait and see" option in the pool. People who have chosen this option will wait between 3 months to even one year for update, whose they don't even know (if) they will like it. That update will propably add only (hated) experience system. I thing Squad should focus on making SANDBOX, because carreer is sandbox with funds, and not sandbox is carrer without funds. Meanwhile sandbox havent changed since years (???)!

[Francois424]

If all this experience did was to turn kerbals into red/yellow coats (as opposed to while or orange) and they gain the BadS status, that would be nice.

But I agree on what was posted on Reddits. I believe the 3 perks where:

Navigator -- gives you a possible intersect course when you want to rendez-vous something. the better the skill, the more precise the RV becomes

Scientist -- More science on transmissions only. Again, better skill = better payouts.

EVA Specialist -- Give the ability to repair stuff that have been destroyed/damaged such as landing gears, Solar panels, and other stuff.

I am not against the proposed Idea for one, but I do admit I prefer the named 3.

Oh and this should also be part of the options when you start a new game. You like it, you check it.

[timsfitz]

Although it would be useful for Kerbals to do simple missions for me, like refueling a Jool space station or something, I can't stand the idea of Kerbals sucking at flying. If they can't complete a mission with a proven ship because of a low piloting skill than I will fly the damded thing myself.

On the argument mentioned earlier about some ships not working because a non buffed Kerbal is in the command seat than you made a poorly designed ship. Just because you have a guy with a 5% ISP doesn't mean you should design the ship with just enough fuel so only that Kerbal can pilot it. Nobody designs crafts for a single special guy to pilot. That's a ridiculous argument. The ISP buffs in reality will make little or no difference in ship design.

Although I think it's fine that a kerbal may have a science perk I think it's a bit pointless. You can already unlock the whole tech tree on hard mode in a few launches. How much easier do you want it to be. An ISP perk will be useful forever. A science perk is basically a waste.

That being said, I would rather have the ability to research better versions of the engines with better ISP, and not have perks that only help one ship that one guy is on.

[Red Iron Crown]

"After exhaustive reading and analysis on your feedback to yesterday's devnotes we have decided to not implement the engine modifying perks."

-Maxmaps

Woohoo!

[Wallygator]

perhaps the "cumulative" experience of ALL kerbals could be applied to enabling the small insignificant increases to thrust and ISP the devs suggest. However, once those improvements are made, they are available to all kerbals AND even of you kill all your kernels in a single mass explosion you would still retain all engineering/performance improvements. Again, this then translates to overall space program experience and improvements rather then the hero syndrome we are arguing about.

[CalculusWarrior]

"After exhaustive reading and analysis on your feedback to yesterday's devnotes we have decided to not implement the engine modifying perks."

-Maxmaps

Woohoo!

Wow. That goes to show the power of the community. I hope we'll get a devblog explaining the system they're going with in great detail.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

"After exhaustive reading and analysis on your feedback to yesterday's devnotes we have decided to not implement the engine modifying perks."

-Maxmaps

Woohoo!

Which, I wonder, leaves what for experience kerbals to do? That was my whole thing.

I wouldn't be shocked if we soon get word that they're basically starting from scratch on the whole kerbal experience thing, because if upgrading kerbals don't actually let you improve performance, then why even bother with the whole exercise to begin with?

Now what I'm afraid of is something like what a couple people have suggested, where an experienced kerbal would allow one to go out and, say, fix a solar panel. Or in other words, it does exactly bunk.

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[Wallygator]

nice one. well done devs. My faith in community collaboration is restored!!! Virtual rep to all.

[Franklin]

"After exhaustive reading and analysis on your feedback to yesterday's devnotes we have decided to not implement the engine modifying perks."

-Maxmaps

Woohoo!

Is Mike Megally Rowsdower?

Kidding, Rowsdower I love you, knucklehead.

[smart013]

I dont think its a good idea from squads part to implement experience in this way into ksp. But maybe for slightly different reasons than stated here before.

As most of todays playerbases the ksp community is in large parts obsessed with comparing itself to other players. Of course with the (unspoken) intention to feel good (aka better) of themselves in comparison to other people. Granted, in ksp this is a lighter touch of the gaming experience, but one only has to look at all the players that feel entitled or simply "better" just because they are playing stock, dont touch mechjeb, playing "hardmode" etc etc. And of course have to inform the public about this all the time.

Squad knew that all the time imho, and this is one of the main drives to let everything stay "comparable". The same parts (aka "stock"), the same planets, the same systems at work and so on. The parts of the playerbase that are mostly interested in "playing" a fun and in parts realistic game do this with some mods, their own rules (some roleplaying, or these "rocket builders" with their drama).

This way every player can get into his own career as a ksp player. First steps, looking at other (prominent) players, copying their styles and tabus (inkl. creating his own "i do not mechjeb" thread), showing around everything build to get cred and maybe ideas, building maybe their own forum persona to get even more cred and so on. Doing challenges, lifting big stuff into lko, dreaming of multiplayer where comparing and bragging with others gets even simpler.

This all comes within the systems of ksp. Implementing something like a experience bonus to things like DV diverts strongly from the old ways of comparing the own "achievements" with others. Even worse, a very experienced kerbal, hero of countless missions and DV +20% asset isnt something to brag with like a +200 mana sword. The ways ksp works these days lets building experience up in a kerbal seem more like cheating than everything else.

So ... maybe a nice touch and good idea. But presented to the wrong playerbase

Edited October 22, 2014 by smart013

[Red Iron Crown]

Which, I wonder, leaves what for experience kerbals to do? That was my whole thing.

I wouldn't be shocked if we soon get word that they're basically starting from scratch on the whole kerbal experience thing, because if upgrading kerbals don't actually let you improve performance, then why even bother with the whole exercise to begin with?

Any of the other suggestions in the thread, I'd imagine. Kerbal specialization. Science buffs. Money buffs. Reputation buffs.

[Rune]

"After exhaustive reading and analysis on your feedback to yesterday's devnotes we have decided to not implement the engine modifying perks."

-Maxmaps

Woohoo!

That's awesome! See? This is how a questionable design decision can be turned into a big PR win and an elated customer base. You listened to us, and quick! Kudos to you, Squad!

Rune. Why do I feel so proud I was one of the voices that helped a tiny bit in shaping the alpha of this game?

[Franklin]

I wouldn't be shocked if we soon get word that they're basically starting from scratch on the whole kerbal experience thing, because if upgrading kerbals don't actually let you improve performance, then why even bother with the whole exercise to begin with?

Honestly, perhaps they should. Work for the sake of work isn't positive gain if the majority of your customer base doesn't like what's done. I really don't see Squad overhauling what they've built, so I would guess to start we'll see a neutered version of this same experience system but have the buffs revolve around the usual science/money/rep dynamic like with the neutered admin building we have right now.

Ideally there's a more elegant, engaging system that has been discussed in this thread and on Reddit (accuracy-based control coupled with actual automation), but that's more complicated and time-consuming to code, soâ€â€

[BudgetHedgehog]

Hell, I'd be happy with something just like Final Frontier. I like to know where my little guys have been and what they've done.