Opinions on "Kerbal Experience"

[CaptRobau]

Rowsdower addendum from the Reddit thread:

We're keeping an eye on this discussion regarding changes but I'd like to clarify some things first.

The way we look at the thrust boosting trait is more nuanced than it looks. http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/2jy307/devnote_tuesdays_the_kspumpkin_edition/clg70zw[1] actually nailed our reasoning perfectly.

But here's some extra points.

The current system works on 5 levels of veterancy, with level 1 giving no bonus at all.

These bonuses would be really, really small, think something between 3 and 5% at max level.

They would be hard to earn, as we want to encourage people to leave Kerbin's SOI

They only affect parts you have full control over, to signify the Kerbal knowing how to work a rocket better, SRBs see no benefit at all.

The current system we have planned has them only active under certain circumstances, say a Kerbal may have a trait for 4% more thrust while in Atmosphere, and another one while in Vacuum.

Traits don't stack.

We're still looking at the system as a whole, so feedback is always welcome.

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

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

Only if you see the thrust/Isp tweak as an actual magical tweak to the spacecraft itself. Not if you see it as the abstraction - that it is - for a veteran pilot's skill in keeping his spacecraft under perfect control, which increases the mission's fuel efficiency. A USS Enterprise with Scotty in engineering is going to run smoother than one with a generic chief engineer. That doesn't mean Kirk is not in control, nor that the physics are violated.

I just hope the community backlash (which in my eyes is to blame partially on the wording that makes it sounds like it's supposed to be a spacecraft modification instead of a Kerbal skill) won't neuter this system and leave Kerbals just as generic as before. I was just looking forward to having a favorite atmospheric pilot, a favorite scientist, etc. Maybe there's a better way to handle it than the current way Squad is planning to implement it, but at the moment all the fan suggestions don't leave me very hopeful. The way it's looking is that everyone wants them to be passengers who just rake in some extra cash or science. That makes Kerbals numbers, instead of characters who help you run your ship more efficiently.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

Rocket equation is fixed, if two kerbals burn full power retrograde at periapsis at ETA-to-PE 0 with 180 units of fuel and they get different results, then you have a violation of physics' laws. And no, there's no way to do that more or less efficiently if you point retrograde and hit Z when the ETA-to-PE is 0, it doesn't matter if you are the most experienced pilot or you are doing the tutorial for the first time.

If the ship had auto-pilot, perhaps. If the Kerbal, at in theory in the game, is having to control the controls stick during the burn, perhaps not so much.

I'm god and I influence the Kerbals directly because I'm the creation and creator itself in this tycoon game. I make things happen or not, I even control the flow of time. That's how tycoon games work. If you want to roleplay differently, do so.

It's not a matter of roleplay. First, you literally cannot control a capsule without a kerbal in it. If you were "god" you could. But you can't. Second, yes, we can control the flow of time. In one direction. Because this type of game dictates it. Unless you really want to sit there for literally two years while your ship goes to Duna.

That would make sense if I get something like RT's flight computer and click prograde and set a burn time/dV and hit execute, not with the traditional tycoon style of being god. As I say, even if I roleplay the kerbals controlling the ship, it is me, player, who presses the buttons at the end of the day.

As it is in every game known to man, pretty much. So...ban leveling up from every game henceforth?

If I remove the Kerbal then I have no one to influence with my godlike powers, I just have a big piece of metal floating aimlessly in space and there's no logical way to influence that.

Aha! So you aren't god. You need someone in the capsule to actually execute your commands. Thanks for agreeing with me on that point.

Uggghhhhh..... but he IS steering well enough! I'm the one steering!!! I'm already on a perfectly straight line, and I can tell because my Navball says so. You have to either be talking about the game taking over and doing things I'm not doing, or the results not matching up with what's shown on screen. As in, my ship is wobbling all over the place, but I get the deltaV as if it wasn't.

My impression (and I'm just guessing) is that the implementation would be more of the latter. You would simulate a kerbal who can't drive by essentially "stealing" dV away from them.

KSP is different. The bit I highlighted above is actually fallacious in KSP because I can take the craft, and calculate out whether or not it's possible to get the 71km periapsis with Kerbin. Irrespective of pilot. That's physically the best the craft can achieve, and KSP models physics well enough that one can perform that calculation. There's NO WAY to get better than that, not even with the best pilot ever.

It IS, however, very easy to get WORSE than that. And in fact, most human pilots would never be able to hit that perfect 71km periapsis. Which is why spaceships in Real Life are controlled by computers most of the time.

I think this part is important to think about as far as implementation: essentially - where is the baseline? Or perhaps better asked - if you had a computer on board perfectly executing commands, what would the values be. Now, is the system going to be implemented where, say, probes get the same dV values as Level 5 (since that is apparently the top level they're looking at) Kerbals, or do they get the same values as Level 1 Kerbals? If it's a system where Kerbals are getting better at flying then, in theory, probes would fly with the same ability as level 5 Kerbals, not Level 1 kerbals. Now, one could get around that by perhaps saying that Kerbals aren't all that skilled at programming flight computers, which I suppose would be a sufficient although not ideal explanation.

Or to put it another way: Do higher level Kerbals Add to the baseline, or do lower level kerbals subtract from the baseline?

Edited October 22, 2014 by FleetAdmiralJ

[Majorjim!]

Only if you see the thrust/Isp tweak as an actual magical tweak to the spacecraft itself. Not if you see it as the abstraction - that it is - for a veteran pilot's skill in keeping his spacecraft under perfect control, which increases the mission's fuel efficiency. A USS Enterprise with Scotty in engineering is going to run smoother than one with a generic chief engineer. That doesn't mean Kirk is not in control, nor that the physics are violated.

The problem people have with this is its seperating the player from the act of flying.

WE as the players improve over time playing KSP. Our ascents get better, our flying, landing skills improve.

Why separate the player from the kerbal. The whole idea is that we control the kerbal not the other way round.

[worir4]

How about something like a more experienced Kerbal means that SAS is better at holding attitude. A more experienced Kerbal can control his/her ship better.

Also more experienced Kerbals bring better rep on recovery but also have a massive rep blow if they are killed.

How about more experienced Kerbals can stand back up faster after they have fallen over. Stuff like this that doesn't really impact the physics.

It would be pretty cool to have like a total Kerbal flight time and space time.

Edited October 22, 2014 by worir4

[DaJay42]

Unfortunately I have to agree with the majority here; my first reaction to the feature in the devnotes is best described as "WHYYY???!?!"

All other aspects are fine and dandy, but changing a vessels physical capabilities just seems like a bad idea on every possible level.

[Trentendegreth]

Rowsdower addendum from the Reddit thread:

Only if you see the thrust/Isp tweak as an actual magical tweak to the spacecraft itself. Not if you see it as the abstraction - that it is - for a veteran pilot's skill in keeping his spacecraft under perfect control, which increases the mission's fuel efficiency. A USS Enterprise with Scotty in engineering is going to run smoother than one with a generic chief engineer. That doesn't mean Kirk is not in control, nor that the physics are violated.

I just hope the community backlash (which in my eyes is to blame partially on the wording that makes it sounds like it's supposed to be a spacecraft modification instead of a Kerbal skill) won't neuter this system and leave Kerbals just as generic as before. I was just looking forward to having a favorite atmospheric pilot, a favorite scientist, etc. Maybe there's a better way to handle it than the current way Squad is planning to implement it, but at the moment all the fan suggestions don't leave me very hopeful. The way it's looking is that everyone wants them to be passengers who just rake in some extra cash or science. That makes Kerbals numbers, instead of characters who help you run your ship more efficiently.

no im with you on this one, im hoping that the backlash from some members of our community dosn't change the outcome, however i dont want them left in the dust either, as thats just not right. so some sort of addition to the options tab, im thinking a cheakmark next to each "skill" to toggle it on/off, would be the best solution for all parties, so those of us that want it can have it, those that don't can shut it off. as per the why or why not, with the options its up to the player, and he/she gets what they want and why.

[Jouni]

Only if you see the thrust/Isp tweak as an actual magical tweak to the spacecraft itself. Not if you see it as the abstraction - that it is - for a veteran pilot's skill in keeping his spacecraft under perfect control, which increases the mission's fuel efficiency. A USS Enterprise with Scotty in engineering is going to run smoother than one with a generic chief engineer. That doesn't mean Kirk is not in control, nor that the physics are violated.

If you see it as an abstraction, it's even worse. The whole point of KSP is that rockets fly according to simulated physics, not according to abstract game mechanics. If you change the simulation into abstraction, it's no longer the KSP we used to play.

[worir4]

How about more experienced Kerbals bring better rep on recovery but also have a massive rep blow if they are killed.

How about more experienced Kerbals can stand back up faster after they have fallen over. Stuff like this that doesn't really impact the physics.

It would be pretty cool to have like a total Kerbal flight time and space time.

Edited October 22, 2014 by worir4

[FreeThinker]

I realy love the Idea of adding experience and traits to kerbals. Finally they become more individual and therefore more valuable to take with you into space. Currently there is no reason at all to take more than 3 kerbals with you into space. With special traits I can Imagin taking a dozen kerbels into space, each with their specialty.

For Example: 5 Pilots (Navigation, Docking, Space Fight, Atmosperic Flight, Aero Break), 2 Scientist (Astro fysisist, Geologist) 5 Engeneers (specialised in optimising Chemical Engines, Electric Engines, Solar Power, Nuclear Engine, Trusters), 4 Mission Specialist (Lifesupport, Powermanagement, EVA, Communication)

if they would also add Morale system, it would also be intresting to add aditional Kerbels to improve Life conditions: Cook, Doctor, Barber, Ecologist

Edited October 22, 2014 by FreeThinker

[Majorjim!]

How about something like a more experienced Kerbal means that SAS is better at holding attitude. A more experienced Kerbal can control his/her ship better.

Also more experienced Kerbals bring better rep on recovery but also have a massive rep blow if they are killed.

How about more experienced Kerbals can stand back up faster after they have fallen over. Stuff like this that doesn't really impact the physics.

It would be pretty cool to have like a total Kerbal flight time and space time.

Again this is a seperation of player and playee.

We as the players improve our skill over time. Having a flat, for all, set of stats for parts gives a level playing field.

This feature will stop people sharing craft in career mode.

I really hope this wont effect sandbox.

[Majorjim!]

I realy love the Idea of adding experience and traits to kerbals. Finally they become more individual and therefore more valuable to take with you into space. Currently there is no reason at all to take more than 3 kerbals with you into space. With special traits I can Imagin taking a dozen kerbels into space, each with their specialty.

For Example: 3 Pilots (Navigation, Docking and Fight), 3 Scientist (Astro fysisist, Mision specialist, geologist) 6 Engeneers (specialised in Chemical Engines, Electric Engines, Solar Power, Nuclear Engine, Communication, Trusters)

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

[Capt Snuggler]

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

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

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

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

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

Kerbal XP can be done better.

[BudgetHedgehog]

One thing that I think hasn't been addressed much is probe control. Will it be equivalent to the very best pilot and his +5 Shirt of Isp? If so, then what's to stop me putting a probe on every ship I fly and basically just having the kerbals as passengers in a cockpit? If probe control is equivalent to a non-experienced kerbal, then.. why? It's literally a computer executing commands or it's literally me piloting the ship and I'm a damn good pilot who can stay pointing at the node.

Incidentally, I think the whole 'better experienced kerbals can point at the manoeuvre node better' is ridiculous. That's what the SAS is for, to keep you pointing in a certain direction. If you told your total newb of a kerbal to point in this certain direction and press the SAS button, the result would be the same as if you told the most experienced pilot to do the same. Unless the torque wheels are somehow affected by who presses the button, which would be magic and stupid.

Edited October 22, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[Red Iron Crown]

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

So much this. Piloting and vessel efficiency already improve with player experience, a kerbal experience mechanic that improves them is redundant IMO. Makes things harder for new players and more grindy for experienced players.

[Bishop149]

The way its described sounds a little silly yes.

Just take as your inspiration what a human astronaut might be able to contribute to a real mission.

Science / Reputation boosts - yes

Thrust / ISP changes - No

"Piloting" is kind of a hard one, skill here would probably come in the form of plotting efficient maneuver nodes, selecting good land sites, docking etc etc. . . all things that fall within the players skill set. The only way I can see of doing that one is by making certain "player aids" only available by having certain Kerbs on the crew. For example make bits of engineer / MechJeb functionality Kerbal limited. . . but seeing as neither of those is stock. . .

[Trentendegreth]

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...

[Frank_G]

I really love the addition of an experience system, which will make each Kerbal somewhat unique. But i think it is a very bad idea to make them influence performance of engines, fuel usage and anything related to pure physics. A good scientist can probably achieve more science out of a single experiment, a good pilot might survive higher G-Force and a good engineer could keep things from breaking again much better than an unexperienced one. But increasing thrust? That is something for a strategy game, where heroes do things better than the usual grunt. I know that the goal is, to make your Kerbals perform more awesome than others... But Jeb for example already owns this status, just by laughing danger in the face... The current plan should seriously be thought through again...

Everything mentioned here is based on the perspective of things we know to date of course and Squad has surprised in a positive way more than once... So please dont take this as an offense or lamenting on something we cant overlook at the moment... Just stay with that, what makes KSP so awesome.

[r4pt0r]

Well 19 pages later and im caught up after working third shift.

I'm quite glad I was able to cause a discussion, and I'm also glad the devs have at least seen the majority negative response to the very concept(as they envision it) of kerbal experience.

[Capt Snuggler]

The way its described sounds a little silly yes.

Just take as your inspiration what a human astronaut might be able to contribute to a real mission.

Science / Reputation boosts - yes

Thrust / ISP changes - No

"Piloting" is kind of a hard one, skill here would probably come in the form of plotting efficient maneuver nodes, selecting good land sites, docking etc etc. . . all things that fall within the players skill set. The only way I can see of doing that one is by making certain "player aids" only available by having certain Kerbs on the crew. For example make bits of engineer / MechJeb functionality Kerbal limited. . . but seeing as neither of those is stock. . .

Pilot skill: should be a G-LOC threshold. this is what I mean.

low pilot skill the kerbal passes out and you loose control during high G-Force. (unless you have a back up co-pilot or computer control)

G-force is already measured in game.

This would complement the players ability to manage G-Forces.

[heng]

Please, reconsider. This will drastically change the experience of KSP in a completely different direction than the one you followed so far.

This is the thread worth creating a forum account for.

A log for each Kerbonaut's achievements? Great!

A pretty badge/hat/sunglasses for every Kerbal who got home from Duna? Yes!

Having space ships with different - apparent - physical attributes depending on who is flying? Please no.

If the argument goes, that an experienced pilot might use less fuel to perform a certain maneuver, have the less experienced pilots get a malus, that is visible on his stats. This malus might decrease to zero on lvl 5... but creating stock parts with variable ISP? ... what about non-stock parts, do they need to account for that, too?

[tater]

I voted indifferent, because I won't really care either way.

What I do want to say though, is that all the people making a huge fuss over the fact that the current plan "isn't realistic bla bla" are being ridiculous. Despite what you may believe, this is a game, not a simulator, and providing magical (and even somewhat justifiable in this case) boosts due to character experience happens all the time in nearly every game and nobody even notices. I think this is a wonderful way to give Kerbals a useful purpose and provide extra reason to take good care of them.

It's magic, that's the problem. The game can be many things, but "magic" shouldn't be one of them. How about discovering alien artifacts to buff your ships… that could be fun, too. Lots of games have power-ups, right?

[CaptRobau]

If you see it as an abstraction, it's even worse. The whole point of KSP is that rockets fly according to simulated physics, not according to abstract game mechanics. If you change the simulation into abstraction, it's no longer the KSP we used to play.

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

The problem people have with this is its seperating the player from the act of flying.

WE as the players improve over time playing KSP. Our ascents get better, our flying, landing skills improve.

Why separate the player from the kerbal. The whole idea is that we control the kerbal not the other way round.

Both are a way of controlling the Kerbal. If Kerbals became MechJeb's, then you'd lose control. You're still in full control. This feature just adds another thing that will improve. At the same time your ascents, flying and landing skills get better, your crew management skills will get better too and allow your 'career you' to become better.

Again this is a seperation of player and playee.

We as the players improve our skill over time. Having a flat, for all, set of stats for parts gives a level playing field.

This feature will stop people sharing craft in career mode.

I really hope this wont effect sandbox.

In career the playing field is only completely level until the first two tech tree, where the tree splits up. From then on out it's all about choices. Do I go for probes, manned or another route? The same will be the case for Kerbals. They'll all start at the lowest level and I doubt there will be hundreds of skills, so with those starting dozen everyone will probably be able to choose from the same level 1 skills. And eventually everyone can have the same loadout as anyone else. Just like everyone can have a full tech tree, everyone will be able to have a level 5 pilot, level 5 scientist, etc.

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

[GusTurbo]

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

[tater]

Why not thrust? (efficiency I can understand- there's no way to boost ISP in real life, other than possibly spiking the rocket fuel with certain dangerous additives...) They boost thrust in real life! Some rocket engines can be clocked up to 133% of their nominal thrust rating... (he "official" ratings are often a bit conservative)

The engine leaves the factory floor able to do 133% of what is on the brochure. Why can Jeb use 133, and Max can only use 100%? He has longer arms and can push it forward? The mechanism for this is overheating, and is already in the game. Engines that actually overheat are really "100%" at max where they don't overheat, and anything above that is dangerous.

This is disheartening to me. "Simulator" and "fun game" are not mutually exclusive or opposite ends of a spectrum. "Simulator" just means that the underlying physics and mechanics are as realistic as is reasonably possible. A simulator can be a fun and accessible game, it's just a matter of user interface with the underlying physics. To my mind KSP is one of the very best simulators from a fun gameplay perspective; it is so not because it dumbs down the physics or cheats around them but because it provides approachable visualizations and interfaces with them.

Some physics concessions to gameplay are appropriate and even desirable (e.g. throttleable and infinitely restartable engines), but I don't think having a kerbal experience system for the things that naturally improve with player experience is one of them.

So very well said.

There is NO conflict between simulation and fun. None at all. It's not a thing. Fun has to do with game design choices, not the underlying mechanics that tell the parts which way to move.

Edited October 22, 2014 by tater

[J.Random]

This would complement the players ability to manage G-Forces.

It would also play nice with DRE, if kerbals can pass out before being killed. Or with FAR, if kerbal pilot has the ability (toggled by player) to limit AoA, for example, preventing player from tearing craft apart by aerodynamic forces.