Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[AbhChallenger]

You should excuse yourself from the debate. You're mischaracterising people's arguments and arguing against strawmen.

By that you mean leave the debate to those with tons of "experience" with KSP right?

It is very simple. The vocal "Keep KSP hardcore crowd" is harming the potential of this game for newer players. Hard to call it a stawman when people are outright saying "Kerbals should not affect parts"

So NO I will not excuse myself thank you.

[CaptainKipard]

By that you mean leave the debate to those with tons of "experience" with KSP right?

Ok, so you're doubling down. Alright... nice.

[AbhChallenger]

Ok, so you're doubling down. Alright... nice.

On what? The "Hardcore" crowd already won this one. They got Squad to back away from a feature likely to not return to it until after 1.0

However that does not make them right on the future of KSP.

[tntristan12]

Should have phrased that tweet to be about all parts, we're looking at other possibilities regarding piloting skill like control surface reaction speed since they're a bit on the slow side currently. Plenty of other traits that work along with the base mechanics and currencies of career mode, though

I have a much easier time swallowing the "delayed reaction time" pill than the "not knowing how to throttle the engine" one. I'd call that a much better implementation. I would also hope that there are some other, more comprehensive ideas on the drawing board though. For the record, I really feel like using Kerbal crews as a type of limited autopilot whose performance is based in experience would do nothing but enhance the form, feel, and function of the stock game.

[Ippo]

However that does not make them right on the future of KSP.

And what makes YOU the authority about the future of ksp?

[Oksbad]

I am lumping everyone in the same group. Because it is the same thing. If it were a simple case of the idea being too simplistic (Which yes it is) You would not have so many in this very topic outright saying that anything that touches engines or parts = bad.

Let's say Squad has an idea for a Kerbal skill that can make maneuver nodes. A low skill will end up with a node to Duna that is over 2000 delta V and gets better but never as good as a handmade node. For newer players it would be a GREAT reason to build experience for Kerbals. However, people would howl saying that players should learn how to do it themselves. Why? Don't start with Realism because no astronaut in history had the call on the path a spacecraft took to the moon. Mars probes use burns constructed by computers years in advance.

Utter crap. Ask the more experienced and realism focused players if they would like mechjeb implemented in the vanilla game, and you'll receive a large amount of support. The biggest use of Mechjeb is not by new players to learn, but by experienced players to automate what has become mundane.

Now you're just inventing things out of whole cloth. If Squad announced experienced Kerbals being able to plot their own maneuver nodes, there would be no controversy, like there is no controversy on Kerbal experience increasing science yields. The controversy arises because a skilled Kerbal making engine ISP more efficient is pointlessly unrealistic and gamey and there are plenty of other ways that Kerbal experience could matter, such as your own suggestion.

And how exactly does the propose change help new players? The people with the experienced crews most capable of taking advantage of it will be the experienced players. New players will receive very little benefit from it.

[AbhChallenger]

And what makes YOU the authority about the future of ksp?

I can see KSP as a game for newer players rather than a "realistic" simulation forced upon them which few will accept.

I can see that a new player having to alt tab to look at a wiki is not good difficulty.

I can see how a few interesting deviations from realism can make the game part of KSP fun for newer players even if it is a bit of magic.

I can accept that Squad can keep the simulation and game aspect separate if given a chance to improve their ideas instead of blanket "Kerbals can't affect parts"

None of that makes me the one authority on the future of KSP. But I can tell you it is a hell of alot more "realistic" for the future of KSP the GAME than shoving realism down newer players throats.

[Wallygator]

...no astronaut in history had the call on the path a spacecraft took to the moon. Mars probes use burns constructed by computers years in advance.

Actually, Crews do liaise quite closely with mission planners and are intimately knowledgable if the various burns and trajectories required as part of the mission profile. And during each lunar landing it was the commander who adjusted the flight path / landing target in the final minutes of the landing sequence.

And... Mars probes (and all other probes for that matter) also conduct adhoc (albeit well planned) course correction mid flight. Such corrections are planned for years in advance yes, but the specific vectors are not know until the actual time of the correction.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Wallygator

[AbhChallenger]

Utter crap. Ask the more experienced and realism focused players if they would like mechjeb implemented in the vanilla game, and you'll receive a large amount of support. The biggest use of Mechjeb is not by new players to learn, but by experienced players to automate what has become mundane.

Now you're just inventing things out of whole cloth. If Squad announced experienced Kerbals being able to plot their own maneuver nodes, there would be no controversy, like there is no controversy on Kerbal experience increasing science yields. The controversy arises because a skilled Kerbal making engine ISP more efficient is pointlessly unrealistic and gamey and there are plenty of other ways that Kerbal experience could matter, such as your own suggestion.

And how exactly does the propose change help new players? The people with the experienced crews most capable of taking advantage of it will be the experienced players. New players will receive very little benefit from it.

That is why I said in my opinion it is a bit too simplistic. A post earlier talked about skill letting Kerbals EVA out to implement changes to the engine. Yes on it's own it is not too handy to newer players as they would have to know how much delta V they need in the first place. Combine that with the Navigator Kerbal and you got some interesting gameplay. Especially if players can start to gather fuels outside of KSC. It may not be pefect but it is atleast a debate. "Kerbals don't affect parts" is not a debate. It is a statement saying "newer players need realism"

[Ippo]

None of that makes me the one authority on the future of KSP. But I can tell you it is a hell of alot more "realistic" for the future of KSP the GAME than shoving realism down newer players throats.

If you feel like that a tiny, tiny bit of difficulty and studying is being "shoved down your throat", maybe you shouldn't have bought a game about astrodynamics. It's kinda like buying battlefield and then complaining that you don't want to shoot people.

1) KSP is not, has never, and never will be, a realistic simulator: it is a very simple, but correct, simulator. The only parts I complain about are those that are wrong, not those that are abstracted. This is wrong, because it doesn't abstract anything, it just adds arcade for the sake of arcade, which is not a good element in a game about astrodynamics.

2) The solution is to have better tutorials and in-game explanations and readouts, not to give bob the "Socks of Major Control Surface Moving".

3) This is, imo, neither a deviation from realism (it just breaks it, period), neither interesting (it's just lazy game design).

4) An idea this stupid should have never been proposed in the first place, and given their record so far, they would never improve it, it would just encrust and stay here forever. Just like planet size: people keep defending the small planet size because it makes the game quicker and more fun... but the reality is that it was a forced necessity in the beginning, and then it stayed forever because of habit, not because of a design choice.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Ippo

[r4pt0r]

Instead of these magic stat upgrades, perhaps only "experienced kerbals" can use features like the "fine rcs control" or more action groups.

idk but others have had good suggestions.

[Wallygator]

I find it interesting and entertaining how this thread has moved beyond the simplistic "Experience should not affect ISP" into a "KSP should/should not mimic reality" discussion.

This is philosophical discussion now rather than a game play dynamic discussion. A primary and foundational tenet of the game is (from the website) "Fully-fledged, Physics-based Flight Simulation ensures everything will fly (and crash) as it should."

IF it is in the interests of gameplay and user experience, there are various approximations made (size of planets, density of atmo, etc.) and there are also placeholders for yet to be implemented computational systems (drag and aero for example) but there are NOT any gravely "Anti-physics" features.

KSP was not and is not intended to mimic the vast majority of arcane space fantasy games already flooding the market. It is a very unique platform with a unique selling point (fully fledged simulation). If a consumer looking for a space game where interstellar dog fights can occur or magic pills can be taken to change the laws of physics, then I suggest (sarcasm coming... wait for it...) they should go out and get a copy of the original wing commander and a vintage DOS computer.

[AbhChallenger]

If you feel like that a tiny, tiny bit of difficulty and studying is being "shoved down your throat", maybe you shouldn't have bought a game about astrodynamics. It's kinda like buying battlefield and then complaining that you don't want to shoot people.

1) KSP is not, has never, and never will be, a realistic simulator: it is a very simple, but correct, simulator. The only parts I complain about are those that are wrong, not those that are abstracted. This is wrong, because it doesn't abstract anything, it just adds arcade for the sake of arcade, which is not a good element in a game about astrodynamics.

2) The solution is to have better tutorials and in-game explanations and readouts, not to give bob the "Socks of Major Control Surface Moving".

3) This is, imo, neither a deviation from realism (it just breaks it, period), neither interesting (it's just lazy game design).

4) An idea this stupid should have never been proposed in the first place, and given their record so far, they would never improve it, it would just encrust and stay here forever. Just like planet size: people keep defending the small planet size because it makes the game quicker and more fun... but the reality is that it was a forced necessity in the beginning, and then it stayed forever because of habit, not because of a design choice.

Nice assuming that I am new to space simulations (I have used Orbiter long enough to remember when the Delta Glider had a simple mesh.) and that any of this affects me instead of newer players.

BTW If #4 were true EVERYONE would be using RSS or the upscale mod.

[Ippo]

Nice assuming that I am new to space simulations

In english, "you" doesn't necessarily refer to the person you are speaking with but can be used in a broader sense.

BTW If #4 were true EVERYONE would be using RSS or the upscale mod.

I don't see how you draw this conclusion.

[AbhChallenger]

It stayed because It indeed is fun not because "Oh that is what I am used to I guess ill stick with it." Because if I cared about realistic scale I would have installed those mods.

Edit: Still I still kind of see your point about Squad leaving it in too simple a form. That is still better than a blanket "Kerbals do not affect parts"

[Ippo]

I wonder how many people would have installed a reduced-scale mod, if realistic planet size had been the default for stock.

My guess is "not many".

[AbhChallenger]

I wonder how many people would have installed a reduced-scale mod, if realistic planet size had been the default for stock.

My guess is "not many".

No instead the game would have had less sales. The "cute, funny" factor was the only reason to play KSP back then. Orbiter was superior to virtually everything else.

[Shuttle]

The "cute, funny" factor was the only reason to play KSP back then. Orbiter was superior to virtually everything else.

What?! KSP is still the only game that allows you to build the rocket yourself.

[AbhChallenger]

What?! KSP is still the only game that allows you to build the rocket yourself.

CVEL, Velcro rockets. KSP was not the first to have lego pieces. It was simply the first to make it fun.

[Shuttle]

CVEL, Velcro rockets. KSP was not the first to have lego pieces. It was simply the first to make it fun.

I didn't know about CVEL and Velcro, thank you. Does Velcro have the same physical model as in KSP where physics is calculated for every part of the rocket or it simply welds all parts together and calculates physics for the rocket as a whole? I hope my question is easy to understand, my English is pretty bad.

[Parkaboy]

Just want to stop by to adress some of the arguments against the engine perks:

- Thrust/fuel increase bonus would break the laws of physics: as MaxMaps pointed out, the system is being approached as an experienced pilot knowing the limits of the spacecraft and being able tu push it beyond the safety margin. I hear some actual spacecraft can reach thrust above 100%, such as the space shuttle - it would be akin to that. It certainly is more believable than a suggestion that was thrown around: increasing the power of the SAS (the game reaction wheels are already far more powerful than real life "physics" would allow).

- It would make impossible for people to share designs or to copy designs from youtubers: MaxMaps has said that the bonus would max out at 5%. That's not that high. In a ship with 4000 m/s dv, it would mean a 200 m/s dv bonus. For most missions, you should already be carrying an extra reserve of about that, it just increases your safety margin. And if you want to share a design that everyone can use, it's just sensible that you don't make a ship that can only be flown by a freaking lv 5 veteran.

- It would ruin my game, I hate it!: would it still ruin your game if it was a toggleable option that you could turn off in the difficulties panel? Do you have to stop everyone - even people who want this feature - from getting it to be happy?

[r4pt0r]

Just want to stop by to adress some of the arguments against the engine perks:

- Thrust/fuel increase bonus would break the laws of physics: as MaxMaps pointed out, the system is being approached as an experienced pilot knowing the limits of the spacecraft and being able tu push it beyond the safety margin. I hear some actual spacecraft can reach thrust above 100%, such as the space shuttle - it would be akin to that. It certainly is more believable than a suggestion that was thrown around: increasing the power of the SAS (the game reaction wheels are already far more powerful than real life "physics" would allow).

- It would make impossible for people to share designs or to copy designs from youtubers: MaxMaps has said that the bonus would max out at 5%. That's not that high. In a ship with 4000 m/s dv, it would mean a 200 m/s dv bonus. For most missions, you should already be carrying an extra reserve of about that, it just increases your safety margin. And if you want to share a design that everyone can use, it's just sensible that you don't make a ship that can only be flown by a freaking lv 5 veteran.

- It would ruin my game, I hate it!: would it still ruin your game if it was a toggleable option that you could turn off in the difficulties panel? Do you have to stop everyone - even people who want this feature - from getting it to be happy?

The issue is not throttling over 100%, its that donfrey kerman can, but dunfrey kerman cant. Its the same ship both times, and should(under the players guiding hand) have the same dv, throttle, ect.. potential both times.

Edit: if anything the rookie would be more apt to overthrottle

[Ippo]

- Thrust/fuel increase bonus would break the laws of physics: as MaxMaps pointed out, the system is being approached as an experienced pilot knowing the limits of the spacecraft and being able tu push it beyond the safety margin. I hear some actual spacecraft can reach thrust above 100%, such as the space shuttle - it would be akin to that. It certainly is more believable than a suggestion that was thrown around: increasing the power of the SAS (the game reaction wheels are already far more powerful than real life "physics" would allow).

The problem with this "explanation" is that it doesn't make any sense.

1) The pilot of a spacecraft cannot choose freely how to handle the vehicle: he has to follow the mission profile, which in KSP means "the player's input". If the player asks for 100%, why on earth is the pilot giving 105%? He'd get his ass fired as soon as he steps back on earth.

2) The space shuttle's engines cannot go above 100%: the truth is that, after the first missions, the engineering departments were able to improve the design and construction of the engine. The new engines (which are not the same model as the old missions) were more powerful: their thrust was therefore more than 100% compared to the previous model.

And anyway this amount of thrust was not made possible by the right guy sitting in the pilot's chair, and it didn't disappear when another pilot took his place.

- It would make impossible for people to share designs or to copy designs from youtubers: MaxMaps has said that the bonus would max out at 5%. That's not that high. In a ship with 4000 m/s dv, it would mean a 200 m/s dv bonus. For most missions, you should already be carrying an extra reserve of about that, it just increases your safety margin. And if you want to share a design that everyone can use, it's just sensible that you don't make a ship that can only be flown by a freaking lv 5 veteran.

200 m/s can make the difference between going home and being stranded in minmus orbit, though.

- It would ruin my game, I hate it!: would it still ruin your game if it was a toggleable option that you could turn off in the difficulties panel? Do you have to stop everyone - even people who want this feature - from getting it to be happy?

For me it is an absolute requirement that it is *at least* toggleable. If it couldn't be disabled, I'd just stop playing.

Furthermore, I honestly believe that KSP is lessened by the simple inclusion of the system as described so far, even if I could disable it: in my eyes, SQUAD has lost a big amount of reputation even just considering the idea.

So if you want it, go ahead: take it and have fun with it. But in my eyes it is so bad that it really makes the game worse just by existing in the code.

[tetryds]

I still think that unlocking the already existant overthrottle could be based on the pilot experience, under the "I know what I am doing" form.

So, if Jeb is a very experienced pilot, having him would allow my throttle go past 100% by a few %s while I hold SHIFT, it would go back to 100% at release could work.

Z would also bring it to 100% and not overthrottle.

This does not change the engine characteristics as the overthrotle is already showed on the marker and would cause the respective overheatings of the engine.

It would be just a safety margin that is removed/softened for experienced pilots, and it does not make anything easier.

The ammount of overthrottle can rely on the experience, and could top at 110% or 120%, being as dangerous as it sounds.

[Levelord]

The issue is not throttling over 100%, its that donfrey kerman can, but dunfrey kerman cant. Its the same ship both times, and should(under the players guiding hand) have the same dv, throttle, ect.. potential both times.

Edit: if anything the rookie would be more apt to overthrottle

I'd like to imagine that the rookie isn't even aware of the option to over-throttle.