Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[BudgetHedgehog]

My original reasoning is that they aren't aware that the overthrottling exists.Since they needed post-it notes to remind them of the simplest no-brainer things in the cockpit, that seems like the most logical and plausible explanation.

Anyway Harvester had stated himself that kerbals aren't exactly stupid, but lack regard for their own personal safety. In other words, they are quite careless despite having advanced technology.

Please make up your mind. I'm getting confused as to whether you think kerbals are stupid or not. If they are (as your first post suggests), then yeah, they'd need experience. If they aren't (as your second post and Harvs comment suggests), then they should be able to overthrottle from day one.

EDIT: Bear in mind this is all moot as the devs decided to not implement engine-changing experience.

Edited October 23, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[FleetAdmiralJ]

So I swing in and...unless something new has been announced since yesterday afternoon, people are STILL arguing over the engine perks stuff? I didn't mind it, but really, they canned it (and we'll have to see how much more they'll have to can as a result in the future). I'm not sure how much point there is in arguing over it anymore.

[Levelord]

Look some games do and some don't. Games where you play a character, you go into into it knowing that's the character and you're just following the

. BTW play Stanley Parable if you haven't already.

KSP isn't one of those games. It's meant to be open to your interpretation but for some reason Squad and a large section of fans insist on parroting this notion that Kerbals do things in a haphazard way. Well screw that is what I say. It's my game and I, like many others, love meticulous planning and flawless execution.

That's all fine and dandy and I'm happy that you like to play the game how you see fit. I'm at the point in the game where I am flying almost perfectly and doing perfectly circular orbits, pinpoint landings and building smaller efficient ships, but it's still fun to entertain the idea that Kerbals are cartoony and silly.

I don't understand why are you letting your personal investment of how you interpret your game bleed out into other people's conversations and later try to fervently contradict the game's creator. :I

[CaptainKipard]

So I swing in and...unless something new has been announced since yesterday afternoon, people are STILL arguing over the engine perks stuff? I didn't mind it, but really, they canned it (and we'll have to see how much more they'll have to can as a result in the future). I'm not sure how much point there is in arguing over it anymore.

I think the discussion is a bit more broad now.

That's all fine and dandy and I'm happy that you like to play the game how you see fit. I'm at the point in the game where I am flying almost perfectly and doing perfectly circular orbits, pinpoint landings and building smaller efficient ships, but it's still fun to entertain the idea that Kerbals are cartoony and silly.

I don't understand why are you letting your personal investment of how you interpret your game bleed out into other people's conversations and later try to fervently contradict the game's creator. :I

I'm not. Others are. They bring up the "dumb Kerbal" thing as support for their wishes in how the game is developed. That's just a decision that a player should make when they play. It shouldn't be the basis for how game mechanics are developed. That's the difference.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Trentendegreth]

So I swing in and...unless something new has been announced since yesterday afternoon, people are STILL arguing over the engine perks stuff? I didn't mind it, but really, they canned it (and we'll have to see how much more they'll have to can as a result in the future). I'm not sure how much point there is in arguing over it anymore.

nothing that i know of, not since the announcement of them canning the part related features...

[Pecan]

So I swing in and...unless something new has been announced since yesterday afternoon, people are STILL arguing over the engine perks stuff? I didn't mind it, but really, they canned it (and we'll have to see how much more they'll have to can as a result in the future). I'm not sure how much point there is in arguing over it anymore.

No, nothing else has really happened. I think nearly everyone (with a few vocal exceptions) agrees experience is a nice idea but that the planned implementation was not. The discussion then boiled down to what's a better alternative and it's more or less between the 'scientist/engineer' repairs and transmission type skills you and others advocated (apologies if I'm simplifying so much as to misrepresent you) and the 'navigator/pilot' node/flying type that I and others prefer. Since that's a matter of taste (mainly whether you always want to fly vehicles yourself) there's no real debate happening on that, just agreeing to differ.

ETA: I would like to say that it's hard to imagine another game where 60-odd pages of argument on such a strongly-felt and contentious issue could have been conducted without, as far as I've seen, a single insult.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pecan

[Levelord]

Please make up your mind. I'm getting confused as to whether you think kerbals are stupid or not. If they are (as your first post suggests), then yeah, they'd need experience. If they aren't (as your second post and Harvs comment suggests), then they should be able to overthrottle from day one.

EDIT: Bear in mind this is all moot as the devs decided to not implement engine-changing experience.

As Harvester explained it, Kerbals are technically intelligent, capable of building advanced space faring technology. They are just incredibly careless and disregard personal safety.

They get really excited to explore space that they forget to put on space suits before EVAing, hence the reminder that they need to put on a suit before opening a hatch. Something most of us would consider a no-brainer because we regard ourselves as safety-conscious, but we aren't ourselves intelligent enough to build spacecraft as individuals.

Considering that there are parachutes and escape towers I'd like to think that at least the Kerbal engineers *consider* safety from time to time to build these. But they can't really control the enthusiasm of other Kerbals going out into space. You know how Kerbonauts are; they get really, really excited and reckless when they go to space, they either grin like idiots or panic. So I can see how the over-throttle button is placed and not labelled as it prevents rookies from discovering it and potentially destroying/overheating the engines while more veteran pilots already know where it is to use it properly.

p.s. If people haven't noticed from my posts in this thread, I haven't said anything about game mechanics and I haven't been arguing about implementing/not implementing mechanics. I'm just talking about the nature of the Kerbals and how they behave.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Levelord

[FleetAdmiralJ]

That's all fine and dandy and I'm happy that you like to play the game how you see fit. I'm at the point in the game where I am flying almost perfectly and doing perfectly circular orbits, pinpoint landings and building smaller efficient ships, but it's still fun to entertain the idea that Kerbals are cartoony and silly.

I don't understand why are you letting your personal investment of how you interpret your game bleed out into other people's conversations and later try to fervently contradict the game's creator. :I

I know i'm probably just contradicting my previous post but here is my problem with the argument: the argument seems to be based on the assumption that with the engine tweaks, the game would have been unpredictable. In fact: it wouldn't have. In fact, Squad's attempt to KEEP the game predictable was used as an argument against it, and really, formed the entire basis that the functionality broke physics in the first place.

So the point is to create differences in Kerbals, that give you certain advantages, while also keeping the game predictable. That's why Level 3 Jeb can drive more efficiently than Level 2 Bill. But that opens up problems: namely that if Bill's inefficiency is actually expressed in game, he will literally not go where the player tells him to go. That can be both frustrating and introduces the problem of random error. To solve that problem, they allow the ship to go where the player wants to, but basically credits better pilots with an efficiency fuel bonus. That way, if you build a ship, and you know Bill will fly it instead of Jeb, you KNOW how much of a penalty you will get that you can knowingly and predictably build into the craft. Literally nothing has changed except the amount of dV (or whatever attribute got enhanced or deducted) needed. Your ability to land on the Mun isn't impacted. Your ability to burn accurately isn't impacted. Your ability to get a good intercept isn't impacted. Your ability to fly a ship with "flawless execution" is, frankly, not impacted.

The problem with implementing it this way is what people who are against it point out: you end up having variations in fuel usage or dV usage, while the start point, path, and end point are identical, even if the enhancements are supposed to imply a more or less efficient burn.

So we see the problem with the whole exercise: If you want kerbals to be different, and you want that expressed in their ability to fly, you essentially have two choices, neither of them supported by players (apparently): You either introduce random errors, which would impact Cpt. Kipard's ability to personally execute his planning and execution, or you apply a buff, but which in practical expression in game creates a "violating physics" problem. Now, I had no problem with essentially simulating a more efficient pilot, but clearly that's the minority view here. But I think it was a good faith effort to at least split the difference and come up with a compromise solution. Clearly not even that is even remotely acceptable to most here.

Which brings me back to why I think Kerbal Expressions, as thus far envisioned, is likely going to have to be scrapped: there is just no way to implement it without either making similar compromises elsewhere, or making the "gains" you get completely pointless. Color me completely unthrilled with the idea that a Kerbal can now go out and fix a solar panel as some sort of actual "skill" that I'm ever going to actually use.

Edit: Just to add, I'm not sure Kerbals being stupid or reckless need be part of that discussion. It's simply that Jeb is a better pilot than Bill, and that is expressed by a fuel or ISP credit while not actually violating the player's control of the craft. As I said, it was a good idea. Clearly I (and Squad) is in the majority in believing that.

I've thought about some of the alternate ways kerbal experiences could work, and I think the most promising is the need to have more experienced kerbals in order to use technology that is further down the tech tree, with experienced either gained from missions, or by spending reputation to train kerbals. Maybe you always have to spend reputation to train kerbals, but it costs less for higher level Kerbals. I think such a system actually brings significant purpose to Kerbal XP levels while, at least on first blush, seemingly violating anything.

A close cousin to this is requiring higher level Kerbals to go on certain missions, but after thinking on it, this idea has a somewhat fatal flaw: such constrictions would have be done on the contract level. For example, the Explore Jool contract could require a Level 3 Kerbal or higher on board to be completed. But otherwise, the game can't stop you from sending a ship full of Level 1 kerbals to Jool if you want. So that idea ends up not being so great. Meanwhile, the parts-based idea can be enforced regardless of the situation.

Edited October 23, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ
because I can't not typo

[Trentendegreth]

Which brings me back to why I think Kerbal Expressions, as thus far envisioned, is likely going to have to be scrapped: there is just no way to implement it without either making similar compromises elsewhere, or making the "gains" you get completely pointless.

this i my thought as well, if its just science gains thru transmission or whatever than in my opinion its a waste of time... use the admin building. though there have been some thought out solutions. not all of which i agree on but, as ive said before "opinions are opinions" and mine falls in the minority this time.

[Pecan]

...So we see the problem with the whole exercise: If you want kerbals to be different, and you want that expressed in their ability to fly, you essentially have two choices, neither of them supported by players (apparently): You either introduce random errors, which would impact Cpt. Kipard's ability to personally execute his planning and execution, or you apply a buff, but which in practical expression in game creates a "violating physics" problem. Now, I had no problem with essentially simulating a more efficient pilot, but clearly that's the minority view here. But I think it was a good faith effort to at least split the difference and come up with a compromise solution. Clearly not even that is even remotely acceptable to most here...

Random's what I'm after, but only if You choose to hand-off to the crew rather than flying yourself. So, for instance, I'll ask intelligent Bob the navigator to plot a manoeuvre-node for me. If I don't like it I'll adjust it in map mode. Now, will I ask exuberant Jeb to execute it for me or is he likely to just max the throttle as soon as he's within 5-degrees of the node? Hmm, I'll chance it ... Meanwhile stupid Bill was really messing-up the science reports so I'll do those myself. etc. etc. In each case it's how the Kerbals use what they've got, not buffing it by magic.

Cpt. Kipard obviously wouldn't trust Bob or Jeb so, for him, they are just passengers and the whole experience thing is moot. Just as science and funds are for sandbox players anyway, or can be adjusted using strategies. I'm totally with you on the science-type buffs but strategies already do that so I think experience should add something different.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

this i my thought as well, if its just science gains thru transmission or whatever than in my opinion its a waste of time... use the admin building. though there have been some thought out solutions. not all of which i agree on but, as ive said before "opinions are opinions" and mine falls in the minority this time.

I think there are alternative - see my edit in my previous post. And perhaps the way Kerbals gain XP can stay intact, but the idea of Kerbals having different classes would seem to need to be revamped. Or at least the classes of Kerbals they had envisioned would need to be revamped. And it would add another level of coding to the game that they perhaps weren't planning on. Though I suppose it might not be too terrible to just have some trait on each part which represents minimum kerbal level required to use.

Random's what I'm after, but only if You choose to hand-off to the crew rather than flying yourself. So, for instance, I'll ask intelligent Bob the navigator to plot a manoeuvre-node for me. If I don't like it I'll adjust it in map mode. Now, will I ask exuberant Jeb to execute it for me or is he likely to just max the throttle as soon as he's within 5-degrees of the node? Hmm, I'll chance it ... Meanwhile stupid Bill was really messing-up the science reports so I'll do those myself. etc. etc. In each case it's how the Kerbals use what they've got, not buffing it by magic.

Cpt. Kipard obviously wouldn't trust Bob or Jeb so, for him, they are just passengers and the whole experience thing is moot. Just as science and funds are for sandbox players anyway, or can be adjusted using strategies. I'm totally with you on the science-type buffs but strategies already do that so I think experience should add something different.

That's a decent idea, and as long as it's toggleable, then at least it's not enforced MechJebbing. But here was my problem with that idea after thinking about it: When would you ever trust "bad pilot Bob" to fly? You probably wouldn't. Players would ONLY allow top level Kerbals to fly (if they did at all). I think that undermines the system. Unless the only way they can increase their piloting skill is to allow them to fly on their own when they're lower level Kerbals. And one still has the problem of what do you really add to the game? Unless you're bad at piloting capsules personally, the only thing one gains is convenience - maybe.

Edited October 23, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ
typos! what else!

[Levelord]

I know i'm probably just contradicting my previous post but here is my problem with the argument: the argument seems to be based on the assumption that with the engine tweaks, the game would have been unpredictable. In fact: it wouldn't have. In fact, Squad's attempt to KEEP the game predictable was used as an argument against it, and really, formed the entire basis that the functionality broke physics in the first place.

So the point is to create differences in Kerbals, that give you certain advantages, while also keeping the game predictable. That's why Level 3 Jeb can drive more efficiently than Level 2 Bill. But that opens up problems: namely that if Bill's inefficiency is actually expressed in game, he will literally not go where the player tells him to go. That can be both frustrating and introduces the problem of random error. To solve that problem, they allow the ship to go where the player wants to, but basically credits better pilots with an efficiency fuel bonus. That way, if you build a ship, and you know Bill will fly it instead of Jeb, you KNOW how much of a penalty you will get that you can knowingly and predictably build into the craft. Literally nothing has changed except the amount of dV (or whatever attribute got enhanced or deducted) needed. Your ability to land on the Mun isn't impacted. Your ability to burn accurately isn't impacted. Your ability to get a good intercept isn't impacted. Your ability to fly a ship with "flawless execution" is, frankly, not impacted.

The problem with implementing it this way is what people who are against it point out: you end up having variations in fuel usage or dV usage, while the start point, path, and end point are identical, even if the enhancements are supposed to imply a more or less efficient burn.

So we see the problem with the whole exercise: If you want kerbals to be different, and you want that expressed in their ability to fly, you essentially have two choices, neither of them supported by players (apparently): You either introduce random errors, which would impact Cpt. Kipard's ability to personally execute his planning and execution, or you apply a buff, but which in practical expression in game creates a "violating physics" problem. Now, I had no problem with essentially simulating a more efficient pilot, but clearly that's the minority view here. But I think it was a good faith effort to at least split the difference and come up with a compromise solution. Clearly not even that is even remotely acceptable to most here.

Which brings me back to why I think Kerbal Expressions, as thus far envisioned, is likely going to have to be scrapped: there is just no way to implement it without either making similar compromises elsewhere, or making the "gains" you get completely pointless. Color me completely unthrilled with the idea that a Kerbal can now go out and fix a solar panel as some sort of actual "skill" that I'm ever going to actually use.

I'm not arguing for game mechanics because I have no vested interest in this specific one. I saw an opportunity to talk about Kerbal lore and behaviors and jumped right into the thread. But perhaps I've jumped into a heated discussion (about something else) that I didn't intend to get involved with.

If it gets implemented (which it won't, it's cancelled) then I have a pretty nice explanation for the Kerbals in terms of lore and their experience gains. If it's not implemented I use it to say that the Kerbonauts still don't know about that 'secret' overthrottle button in order to explain why the overthrottle gauge is still on the navball. It works out nicely for me either way.

[PDCWolf]

I know i'm probably just contradicting my previous post but here is my problem with the argument: the argument seems to be based on the assumption that with the engine tweaks, the game would have been unpredictable. In fact: it wouldn't have. In fact, Squad's attempt to KEEP the game predictable was used as an argument against it, and really, formed the entire basis that the functionality broke physics in the first place.

Tell me how rocket performance being affected by kerbals on board isn't unpredictable behaviour of parts, is it because I choose who goes in the pod? Sure, it is predictable on my side, but not when I post my craft on the sharing subforum, I have to specify you need 2 3% ISP boosting kerbals and the pilot needs the overthrottle perk or the rocket won't fully work.

So the point is to create differences in Kerbals, that give you certain advantages, while also keeping the game predictable. That's why Level 3 Jeb can drive more efficiently than Level 2 Bill. But that opens up problems: namely that if Bill's inefficiency is actually expressed in game, he will literally not go where the player tells him to go. That can be both frustrating and introduces the problem of random error. To solve that problem, they allow the ship to go where the player wants to, but basically credits better pilots with an efficiency fuel bonus. That way, if you build a ship, and you know Bill will fly it instead of Jeb, you KNOW how much of a penalty you will get that you can knowingly and predictably build into the craft. Literally nothing has changed except the amount of dV (or whatever attribute got enhanced or deducted) needed. Your ability to land on the Mun isn't impacted. Your ability to burn accurately isn't impacted. Your ability to get a good intercept isn't impacted. Your ability to fly a ship with "flawless execution" is, frankly, not impacted.

See how complex the explanation for that is? do you imagine yourself explaining that to a friend when you tell him you play KSP? It's too abstract, limited on playability (you need a certain mindset to understand it), and changes part performance on a kerbal-to-kerbal basis, which is inherently bad because rocket science doesn't work like that at all.

The problem with implementing it this way is what people who are against it point out: you end up having variations in fuel usage or dV usage, while the start point, path, and end point are identical, even if the enhancements are supposed to imply a more or less efficient burn.

So we see the problem with the whole exercise: If you want kerbals to be different, and you want that expressed in their ability to fly, you essentially have two choices, neither of them supported by players (apparently): You either introduce random errors, which would impact Cpt. Kipard's ability to personally execute his planning and execution, or you apply a buff, but which in practical expression in game creates a "violating physics" problem. Now, I had no problem with essentially simulating a more efficient pilot, but clearly that's the minority view here. But I think it was a good faith effort to at least split the difference and come up with a compromise solution. Clearly not even that is even remotely acceptable to most here.

Solutions have been suggested, you even speedquoted (your explanations were off, even when quoting someone) some of them on a previous post.

Which brings me back to why I think Kerbal Expressions, as thus far envisioned, is likely going to have to be scrapped: there is just no way to implement it without either making similar compromises elsewhere, or making the "gains" you get completely pointless. Color me completely unthrilled with the idea that a Kerbal can now go out and fix a solar panel as some sort of actual "skill" that I'm ever going to actually use.

Making compromises elsewhere? Currency gains have been suggested and explained with logically sound arguments multiple times, more complex ideas also received logically sound arguments and explanations too, it seems you don't want to see the forest behind the tree.

Edit: Just to add, I'm not sure Kerbals being stupid or reckless need be part of that discussion. It's simply that Jeb is a better pilot than Bill, and that is expressed by a fuel or ISP credit while not actually violating the player's control of the craft. As I said, it was a good idea. Clearly I (and Squad) is in the majority in believing that.

Now you are assuming squad had the same thought train as you did.

I've thought about some of the alternate ways kerbal experiences could work, and I think the most promising is the need to have more experienced kerbals in order to use technology that is further down the tech tree, with experienced either gained from missions, or by spending reputation to train kerbals. Maybe you always have to spend reputation to train kerbals, but it costs less for higher level Kerbals. I think such a system actually brings significant purpose to Kerbal XP levels while, at least on first blush, seemingly violating anything.

A close cousin to this is requiring higher level Kerbals to go on certain missions, but after thinking on it, this idea has a somewhat fatal flaw: such constrictions would have be done on the contract level. For example, the Explore Jool contract could require a Level 3 Kerbal or higher on board to be completed. But otherwise, the game can't stop you from sending a ship full of Level 1 kerbals to Jool if you want. So that idea ends up not being so great. Meanwhile, the parts-based idea can be enforced regardless of the situation.

So, it took you 16 pages (I use 40something messages per page, sorry for differences) to think about a solution suggested at least 3 times with different explanations, good.

[Trentendegreth]

" Just to add, I'm not sure Kerbals being stupid or reckless need be part of that discussion. It's simply that Jeb is a better pilot than Bill, and that is expressed by a fuel or ISP credit while not actually violating the player's control of the craft. As I said, it was a good idea. Clearly I (and Squad) is in the majority in believing that.

I've thought about some of the alternate ways kerbal experiences could work, and I think the most promising is the need to have more experienced kerbals in order to use technology that is further down the tech tree, with experienced either gained from missions, or by spending reputation to train kerbals. Maybe you always have to spend reputation to train kerbals, but it costs less for higher level Kerbals. I think such a system actually brings significant purpose to Kerbal XP levels while, at least on first blush, seemingly violating anything."

i like the idea and if i may expand a bit?

we can keep the "classes" and expand it...based off of what i think your saying here.

say an engineer has the training to use and maintain a battman battery pack and a comms antenna, as he gains "XP" and levels up he shares what he knows with other Engineers, now this shared knowledge dosen,t go directly to other engineers but to an engineer tree, that allows the use of certain tech to be unlocked for use (not to be confused with researched), provided other engineers have the training (by spending reputation) to use it.

a similer instance would work for scientist, rover driver, and so on.. depending on how its split up...

im not sure if all of that quite came out the way i see it in my head but well there it is...

and PDCWolf, I'm sorry but your coming across as hostile at this point... just wanted to throw that out there.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Trentendegreth

[kahlzun]

I like the idea of the Kerbals gaining experience and that affecting the rockets performance

Makes me feel like i am managing/supervising Kerbals rather than simply bussing them around.

I don't have a problem with minor changes to the stats: the numbers chosen are arbitrary anyway, and it gives value to the individual kerbals that the current system lacks (Seriously think: what was the name of the last kerbal you flew to the Mun? Unless it was Jeb, Bill or Bob, they have practically no identity)

If people are struggling to imagine a physical scenario whereby thrust/isp would be affected by skill, it comes down to safety interlocks.

Engines have systems implemented to ensure that the engines do not overheat (or that the fuel is 'choked' or the turbopump has a max pump speed etc etc), however these mechanical systems are inefficient (keeping in mind 60s level tech). An experienced pilot can manually override the interlocks, as he is sufficiently skilled to manipulate the fuelmix and/or flowrate to prevent overheating while maximising thrust.

As the fuel is coming through faster (due to turbopump overclock) there is extra thrust, and as the fuelmix is intelligently adjusted as the bell preheats the fuel, it burns more efficiently also, for an (effective) increase in isp...

... 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. ...

Yes, that's exactly how I see it.

Edited October 23, 2014 by kahlzun

[Pecan]

(To my 'random mechjeb' navigator/pilot)...That's a decent idea, and as long as it's toggleable, then at least it's not enforced MechJebbing. But here was my problem with that idea after thinking about it: When would you ever trust "bad pilot Bob" to fly? You probably wouldn't. Players would ONLY allow top level Kerbals to fly (if they did at all). I think that undermines the system. Unless the only way they can increase their piloting skill is to allow them to fly on their own when they're lower level Kerbals. And one still has the problem of what do you really add to the game? Unless you're bad at piloting capsules personally, the only thing one gains is convenience - maybe.

Bad pilot Bob would need to be trained and gain experience. Your mechanic for that - spending reputation and/or funds on training - is a good one. In addition I may well let him gain by experience in a trainer aircraft or flying a SSTO to orbit, but take over myself (or use a better pilot already in the cockpit) for the landing. Certainly any (auto/Kerbal)pilot features must not be forced upon the player, but you get the option to use its features/their experience by clicking a button. You still have the option to cancel that if you don't like the results the computer/Kerbals produce.

Incidentally, I'm not saying autopilot features have to be the only feature added, just that it makes sense, provides a function that a lot of people (including me) do want and use and it doesn't require any new game mechanics apart from the experience itself to be added. Separately, I'm also using 'stupid' Bill as an example because courage and stupidity are the traits already specified for Kerbals so they might as well be used.

@kahlzun

Nealry everyone likes the idea of individualising Kerbals and letting them get better at their job(s) with experience. This whole thread is because/about the fact that a better pilot, for instance, doesn't make the engine work better though, he FLIES it better.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pecan

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Tell me how rocket performance being affected by kerbals on board isn't unpredictable behaviour of parts, is it because I choose who goes in the pod? Sure, it is predictable on my side, but not when I post my craft on the sharing subforum, I have to specify you need 2 3% ISP boosting kerbals and the pilot needs the overthrottle perk or the rocket won't fully work.

Having to say this rocket is built for a Level 3 pilot Kerbal may be an added step in sharing ships, but it doesn't make it unpredictable. If you have ship A matched with Kerbal of Skill Y, it works. It's an added variable? Yes. Unpredictable? No. Or better yet, build a ship that works with a Level 1 Kerbal, and then it will work for every kerbal regardless of level (though I suppose that might not work if you try to build ships that use every drop of dV and fuel precisely).

See how complex the explanation for that is? do you imagine yourself explaining that to a friend when you tell him you play KSP? It's too abstract, limited on playability (you need a certain mindset to understand it), and changes part performance on a kerbal-to-kerbal basis, which is inherently bad because rocket science doesn't work like that at all.

I don't even think that description is all that complex, but even giving you that, I don't think one needs all that in the game. Simply say Jeb can fly more efficiently than Bill.

Making compromises elsewhere? Currency gains have been suggested and explained with logically sound arguments multiple times, more complex ideas also received logically sound arguments and explanations too, it seems you don't want to see the forest behind the tree.

I would put simply having science and currency games under the "completely pointless" category because we already have a system to boost our science and money (and reputation).

So, it took you 16 pages (I use 40something messages per page, sorry for differences) to think about a solution suggested at least 3 times with different explanations, good.

I don't think it's an ideal solution. I actually think the original idea was better. There are still issues with it. It also, still, doesn't seem to be the favored alternative here. But at least it's not terrible.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

i like the idea and if i may expand a bit?

we can keep the "classes" and expand it...based off of what i think your saying here.

say an engineer has the training to use and maintain a battman battery pack and a comms antenna, as he gains "XP" and levels up he shares what he knows with other Engineers, now this shared knowledge dosen,t go directly to other engineers but to an engineer tree, that allows the use of certain tech to be unlocked for use (not to be confused with researched), provided other engineers have the training (by spending reputation) to use it.

a similer instance would work for scientist, rover driver, and so on.. depending on how its split up...

im not sure if all of that quite came out the way i see it in my head but well there it is...

I had thought of something along those lines - Like a engine specialist Kerbal, an electrical specialist kerbal, etc. that would all be needed to "use" those parts. I guess my main concern with that it could turn into a situation where you have a ship and you would be required to bring 5 different classes of kerbals with you to make sure everything worked. Maybe that's not a problem, but I think it might limit what some people can do in the game if going to Jool ends up requiring a Level 4 engine specialist, Level 3 Electrical Engineer, Level 4 Navigator, and a Level 5 Scientist to make sure everything actually works. And if one of them somehow gets killed, the whole mission might be doomed (though I suppose there are plusses and minuses to that too)

[PDCWolf]

Having to say this rocket is built for a Level 3 pilot Kerbal may be an added step in sharing ships, but it doesn't make it unpredictable. If you have ship A matched with Kerbal of Skill Y, it works. It's an added variable? Yes. Unpredictable? No. Or better yet, build a ship that works with a Level 1 Kerbal, and then it will work for every kerbal regardless of level (though I suppose that might not work if you try to build ships that use every drop of dV and fuel precisely).

I don't even think that description is all that complex, but even giving you that, I don't think one needs all that in the game. Simply say Jeb can fly more efficiently than Bill.

See how mindsets collide? To cope with those 2 cases you need:

1- Someone with the exact same mindset as you roleplaying as giving orders to the kerbals

2- Someone with a mindset not focused on efficiency and general vehicle design or to build crafts exclusively for sharing

Most of the time, requiring the player to confront a feature with a certain, very specific mindset, is bad because whoever thinks differently, even if its a small difference, will feel the feature is badly thought out, illogical, badly implemented or worse.

I would put simply having science and currency games under the "completely pointless" category because we already have a system to boost our science and money (and reputation).

Well, I would put a 3% boost on anything pointless because it is so small you either exploit to get a real benefit or don't include it at all, as it has been said before on this same thread. No one is against the feature that's why there's so many suggestions and not so many "i don't want it" contrary to what you previously pointed, most seem to -prefer- a feature that doesn't alter anything related to piloting or craft performance, for different reasons, and no, I BELIEVE it isn't squad "just blindly listening and following the community" but rather realizing a mistake pointed out and brought to light by the community before it was too late.

Edited October 23, 2014 by PDCWolf
my shift key gets stuck because I poured coke on my keyboard

[Trentendegreth]

I had thought of something along those lines - Like a engine specialist Kerbal, an electrical specialist kerbal, etc. that would all be needed to "use" those parts. I guess my main concern with that it could turn into a situation where you have a ship and you would be required to bring 5 different classes of kerbals with you to make sure everything worked. Maybe that's not a problem, but I think it might limit what some people can do in the game if going to Jool ends up requiring a Level 4 engine specialist, Level 3 Electrical Engineer, Level 4 Navigator, and a Level 5 Scientist to make sure everything actually works. And if one of them somehow gets killed, the whole mission might be doomed (though I suppose there are plusses and minuses to that too)

and i agree on that over complication, however if an individual Kerbal can "multi class" or multitask then that significantly reduces the crew needed, and its not unheard of in that respect, in the military we shared "training" between MOs's so that infantry guy could pick up my radio and use it, and know what he was doing.

so for instance your engine specialist could also be an electrical engineer as well, giving individual kerbals a uniqness to them as well,

i also think that training them may not nessisarily have to be limited to Rep ether but funds as well.

[Broax]

EDIT:SQUAD HAS SINCE CANCELED THE IDEA

More details to come im sure

I really hope this doesn't mean the whole concept of Kerbal XP and Kerbal classes gets canceled but only the implementation. I really love the idea of Kerbal classes and the ability to progress based on XP! I know this is being discussed to deah and I'm obviously not going to read 50+ pages of comments but here are my ideas on this:

Classes and class-specific traits:

Scientists:

- The only ones able to retrieve science data from experiments;

- Required to be on ship in order to transmit science back. The amount of science transmitted would be dependent on level (XP);

- The only ones able to reset experiments. The number of times an experiment can be reset would be dependent on level (XP);

- The only ones able to retrieve soil samples. The amount of science gained per sample would be dependent on level (XP);

Engineers:

- The only ones able to repair broken gear (would required better damage system). The types of repair (solar panels, flat wheels, etc.) as well as the time to repair and extent of the "repairable" damage would be dependent on level (XP);

- The only ones able to manually deploy solar panels, repack chutes, etc. The types of work (solar panels, parachutes, etc.) as well as the time to deploy/repack/etc would be dependent on level (XP);

- Required to be on ship to perform resource (fuel, oxidizer, monopropellant and maybe one day food, oxygen, etc) transfers. The rate of the transfer, the type of transferable resources as well as the ability to do precise transfers (being able to type the amount to transfer instead of only being able to click "stop" and being hopeful) would be dependent on level (XP);

Pilots:

- Required to be on ship for it to be able to dock. The type of docking ports usable would be dependent on level (XP);

- Could (MAAAAYBEEE!!!) give minor passive boost to RCS (as suggested by a couple of comments). The the amount of RCS boost would be dependent on level (XP);

- Could (MAAAAYBEEE!!!) give minor passive boost to reaction wheel speed (as suggested by a couple of comments). The the amount of reaction wheel speed boost would be dependent on level (XP);

- Really high-level pilots would be able to perform some repetitive tasks (launch, hoffman transfers, etc.) automatically. But only after said kerbal performed such a task at least 10 or 15 times;

- Some higher-level parts (LV-N engine, Mk3, Mk1-2) would required Pilot certificate (as suggested by a couple of comments) dependent on level (XP);

- More precise nodes would be available for kerbals with higher level (XP);

Non-class specific:

- Kerbals with low courage would be prone to random panic attacks. The probability of a panic attack would depended of the situation (being on a runway would be close to 0% chance, but a 5G launch would be 15% chance), the amount of bravery, mission timer (longer missions are more stressful), distance from Kerbin, availability or resources, intelligence (as they would be able to make a better assessment of the situation), Kerbal level (XP), etc. If on a panic attack the Kerbal would either freeze in panic or to do random stuff like give random controls to ship steering or jump on EVA and try to swim back home (something like what's seen on Xcom). Funny animations for the CCTV would be mandatory of course...

- Intelligence would impact most (if not all) class specific traits. An experienced scientist would be able to take soil samples from Duna but a smart scientist would get more science points in return;

- Very experienced and high-level Kerbals would give "inspiration" (or something along those likes). A passive bravery boost to the ships crew;

- The amount of intelligence would impact the amount of XP a Kerbin would gain from each flight.

So... These are the ideas I had so far. I think that implementing a system similar to this one would keep everyone very happy while giving some extra depth to the game and making Kerbal safety more of a priority. Many of these ideas are scattered along this thread and it's not my intention to copy anyone but I share a lot of the views and, like I said, I'm not going to read 50+ pages of comments.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Broax
Some editing

[FleetAdmiralJ]

See how mindsets collide? To cope with those 2 cases you need:

1- Someone with the exact same mindset as you roleplaying as giving orders to the kerbals

2- Someone with a mindset not focused on efficiency and general vehicle design or to build crafts exclusively for sharing

Most of the time, requiring the player to confront a feature with a certain, very specific mindset, is bad because whoever thinks differently, even if its a small difference, will feel the feature is badly thought out, illogical, badly implemented or worse.

Any new feature is going to require players to conform to specific mindset to some extent, unless you play sandbox, in which case this entire discussion is irrelevant.

However, addressing your first point: it's hard to argue that you aren't "giving orders to the kerbals" or else you would be able to fly command pods without kerbals in them, which of course you can't. Requiring kerbals to be in the pods to operate them implies that the kerbals are the ones actually pushing the buttons. If one takes the stand that giving kerbals attributes doesn't make sense because Kerbals aren't doing anything to begin with, then the logical extension to that is Kerbals shouldn't be required to fly at all. But of course they are (unless you use a probe anyway).

Well, I would put a 3% boost on anything pointless because it is so small you either exploit to get a real benefit or don't include it at all, as it has been said before on this same thread. No one is against the feature that's why there's so many suggestions and not so many "i don't want it" contrary to what you previously pointed, most seem to -prefer- a feature that doesn't alter anything related to piloting or craft performance, for different reasons, and no, I BELIEVE it isn't squad "just blindly listening and following the community" but rather realizing a mistake pointed out and brought to light by the community before it was too late.

so the idea is both, simultaneously, an egregious violation of physics and your ability to role play and an irrelevant improvement that doesn't actually do anything. I get it. As for suggestions, I haven't been through the posts from overnight so I can't speak to those, But I would say that maybe 2-3% of the first 400 posts in this thread had some semblance of suggestions, and most of them either suffered from the same problems (in that they would violate physics based on people's arugments) or would have problems violating people's right to role play as they wished, which appears to be one of your major concerns. And yes, the vast, vast, vast majority of messages were not just opposition but near "I will quit playing this game" opposition.

I don't think Squad is blindly following the community. I also don't think Squad believes their original idea was a mistake either. But they do recognize that including a feature that incites such widespread criticism is a mistake. Squad hasn't been afraid to include features that many in the community disliked before, but the discussion was often more split on those features.

and i agree on that over complication, however if an individual Kerbal can "multi class" or multitask then that significantly reduces the crew needed, and its not unheard of in that respect, in the military we shared "training" between MOs's so that infantry guy could pick up my radio and use it, and know what he was doing.

so for instance your engine specialist could also be an electrical engineer as well, giving individual kerbals a uniqness to them as well,

i also think that training them may not nessisarily have to be limited to Rep ether but funds as well.

I think that could be a way to deal with. Perhaps Up to Level 3, kerbals can only focus on a single class, but perhaps they can add additional specializations with classes 4 and 5, so you can reduce the number of required kerbals you need by including higher ranked Kerbals. That could be a decent way to get around that issue.

I think rep should be required to train to some extent, just because we need a way to spend rep. But that's what the admin building is for. If you want to spend money on training, you now have a reason to convert cash into reputation.

Edited October 23, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[Red Iron Crown]

However, addressing your first point: it's hard to argue that you aren't "giving orders to the kerbals" or else you would be able to fly command pods without kerbals in them, which of course you can't. Requiring kerbals to be in the pods to operate them implies that the kerbals are the ones actually pushing the buttons.

My TV remote control requires batteries in it to function. Does that mean the batteries are pushing the buttons?

[Trentendegreth]

I think that could be a way to deal with. Perhaps Up to Level 3, kerbals can only focus on a single class, but perhaps they can add additional specializations with classes 4 and 5, so you can reduce the number of required kerbals you need by including higher ranked Kerbals. That could be a decent way to get around that issue.

I think rep should be required to train to some extent, just because we need a way to spend rep. But that's what the admin building is for. If you want to spend money on training, you now have a reason to convert cash into reputation.

hey im all in now Rep being required to Train is more than except-able, and have a Strategy "outsourced training" that converts a portion of the rep required into funds required....yea i could dig this

My TV remote control requires batteries in it to function. Does that mean the batteries are pushing the buttons?

are you implying that my green smoke filled fodder pills are actualy Batteries

Edited October 23, 2014 by Trentendegreth

[FleetAdmiralJ]

My TV remote control requires batteries in it to function. Does that mean the batteries are pushing the buttons?

Batteries have a clear purpose for being necessary in running a remote (providing power). What purpose does a Kerbal have in a pod if he's not pushing buttons that requires it's presence?