What is the point in kerbals having stats?

[Wallygator]

So, in the end we will do what Apollo did. Put an advanced probe core on each vessel regardless of whether there are passengers or not.

[LethalDose]

Well, unless you haven't read the new devnotes:

(short summary)

Engineers: only kerbals who can repair parts (blown wheels, busted landing gear, broken solar panels, repack parachutes, etc.)

Pilots: skill level determines actions they can execute (hold to maneuver node, hold to prograde, hold to retrograde, etc.)

Probes: different probes can also perform the same actions as the pilot. The type of probe you us determines what they can do (the most basic probe may only be able to hold to prograde/retrograde, while the most advanced one can do everything a pilot can.)

(Bolded emphasis mine)

This actually kind of bugs me because it seems like I have to break something before I can improve my engineers' skills (unless I'm just repacking chutes over and over), or I have to waste a seat on an engineer to send him somewhere to level him up.

Also, the OP here was discussing Kerbal's stats (which are currently BadS, Courage, and Stupidity). And while these have always been merely place holders, it's still completely unclear if there will be kerbal attributes after the XP addition, or how those stats will affect performance.

The big questions on my mind right now are:

1. Are we keeping to see Kerbal stats in the game?
   
2. If there are stats, then how do they affect Kerbals' performance?
   OR
   
3. If there are stats, how will they affect job assignment/selections?
   
4. And finally can kerbals have mulitple jobs ratings.
   

So, in the end we will do what Apollo did. Put an advanced probe core on each vessel regardless of whether there are passengers or not.

In all fairness, Vostok did it, like, a decade before Apollo.

[Wallygator]

My perspective has always been that the soviet program was advanced probe burdoned with strap on passengers and the American program was arrogant pilots reluctantly fitted with strap on probe cores. ;-)

[John FX]

(Bolded emphasis mine)

This actually kind of bugs me because it seems like I have to break something before I can improve my engineers' skills (unless I'm just repacking chutes over and over), or I have to waste a seat on an engineer to send him somewhere to level him up.

Also, the OP here was discussing Kerbal's stats (which are currently BadS, Courage, and Stupidity). And while these have always been merely place holders, it's still completely unclear if there will be kerbal attributes after the XP addition, or how those stats will affect performance.

The big questions on my mind right now are:

1. Are we keeping to see Kerbal stats in the game?
   
2. If there are stats, then how do they affect Kerbals' performance?
   OR
   
3. If there are stats, how will they affect job assignment/selections?
   
4. And finally can kerbals have mulitple jobs ratings.
   

In all fairness, Vostok did it, like, a decade before Apollo.

These are the issues that made me start the thread. It`s fair enough having specialisations n stuff but it does not change the relevance of the original question.

Even if we get levels of pilot skill, engineer skill and scientist skill (which I am looking forward to), what is the point in kerbals having stats? How will they materially affect gameplay?

I`m not sure they are relevant under the new system.

multiple skills is tricky, some will see it as OP, some as simply the right option.

Maybe kerbals get skill upgrades based on number of flights? Then you have an engineer `just because` and they get experience even if nothing breaks (which should suggest they did their job right)

[Guest]

My opinion:

Pilot Kerbals (and more advanced probe cores) should be able to execute simple commands, like keep pro- and retrograde, normal+- radial +-, keep vertical and horizontal speed at the limits, keep given speed relative to target, execute node, and so on. Like Diazo's mods + smartASS. Of course all operations have some difficulty coefficients, and, kerbals with lower skills might have trouble of accurately executing commands.

Engineer Kerbals do repairs, and scientist Kerbals boost science outputs and transmission coefficients.

Some Kerbals can even have several skills.

How to avoid probe cores being OP pilots? They are OP pilots IRL ... or not?

Implement signal delays and antenna links? Stock RemoteTech? What about probe programming? IRL probes carry complex programs... SQUAD against it...

May be crewed craft should be piloted by player more-less directly, supposing player IS kerbal in command, and probes should have RemoteTech and KOS in stock?

I do not know...

P.S.

And all the commands issued to Kerbals via special command interface panel should have voice-over, both commands and answers.

Like:

CAPCOM: Jeb, I want you to turn 0-6-0 and null your rates.

Jeb: Roger that, 0-6-0 and null rates. Just don't ask me to stir oxygen tanks, ok?

Edited December 14, 2014 by Guest
Damn typos again

[Wallygator]

The legacy traits (courage, stupidity, BadASS) probably serve no purpose in the new system. IF ANY, they might be used to regulate the RATE of experience uptake or possibly the maximum level of experience - but either of those effects are purely synthetic and probably a forced use. I suggest they deprecate them.

If they are retained then I would approve of them only being used to calculate the emotional response of the Kerbal in the crew monitor cams - so just a bit of eye candy in the end.

[cantab]

I can see courage and stupidity working well with the pilot system. A braver kerbal would turn the ship harder and quicker, while a timid Kerbal will be very cautious and slow. A cleverer kerbal would be better at stopping dead on, while a stupid kerbal would tend to overshoot.

For scientists a simple cleverer=more science arrangement could hold. Not sure about bravery.

For engineers, perhaps a cowardly kerbal would be unwilling to do repairs in certain situations. For example he won't be repacking the chutes while you're entering the atmosphere, or will insist the jet engine be shut down before he'll fix the plane's wheels. A message saying exactly what the kerbal is unhappy with would be needed.

[John FX]

I can see courage and stupidity working well with the pilot system. A braver kerbal would turn the ship harder and quicker, while a timid Kerbal will be very cautious and slow. A cleverer kerbal would be better at stopping dead on, while a stupid kerbal would tend to overshoot.

For scientists a simple cleverer=more science arrangement could hold. Not sure about bravery.

For engineers, perhaps a cowardly kerbal would be unwilling to do repairs in certain situations. For example he won't be repacking the chutes while you're entering the atmosphere, or will insist the jet engine be shut down before he'll fix the plane's wheels. A message saying exactly what the kerbal is unhappy with would be needed.

I could imagine that a kerbal who is brave but stupid would tend to overcook stuff, maybe overheating their engines to the point of explosion, instead of taking them to the limit, which a brave but not stupid kerbal would do. Not sure how this would translate to engineering or science though.

I'll be interested to see if stats become relevant in 1.0

[r4pt0r]

I could imagine that a kerbal who is brave but stupid would tend to overcook stuff, maybe overheating their engines to the point of explosion, instead of taking them to the limit, which a brave but not stupid kerbal would do. Not sure how this would translate to engineering or science though.

I'll be interested to see if stats become relevant in 1.0

A majority of people disliked the idea of kerbals affecting part stats. After a 64page thread we got that silly idea shut down.

Edited April 19, 2015 by r4pt0r
'silly' has a nicer tone than 'foolish'

[Pthigrivi]

So a while back I gave some thought to skills, experience and life support. My thought then was that life support could be a single resource, and that a second resource, 'happiness' would determine experience payouts when kerbals reached a new exploration goal. Happiness would start at %100 at launch and slowly deplete to zero after maybe a year. A Kerbal with %100 happiness would receive a full experience reward, and an unhappy kerbal would receive no experience. Depletion rates could be slowed or even reversed by having multiple kerbals on a mission and with a series of habitation modules.

Under this paradigm, Bravery and Stupidity would be related to happiness and experience. Brave Kerbals would stay happier for longer, but would contribute less to the happiness of other kerbals on a mission. Stupid kerbals would contribute more to the happiness of other kerbals the same vessel, preserving others' happiness, at the expense of experience payouts for themselves. This way a Kerbal with high bravery and low stupidity would be better for solo missions, and having stupid kerbals will be important for keeping lots of kerbals happy on long, multiple-kerbal missions. This way stupidity isn't really a total loss--it's an endearing quality that benefits the social lives of kerbals.

[John FX]

The ship performs the same under all conditions; the underlying physics do not change at all. The kerbal's experience level might determine the maximum amount of thrust that s/he can control; if the ship has greater than that amount of thrust the kerbal cannot operate it at full capacity, but it performs exactly the same up until that limit. Ideally, one would crew the vessel with at least one kerbal able to operate it at full capacity. This is different from a blanket nerf on craft performance for inexperienced kerbals in that it is a pass/fail proposition. A kerbal either has full control or none at all.

This may seem like a fine distinction but it is an important one, at least to me.

So after the release of 1.0 and the subsequent patches, I still find my original question valid, that being "What is the point in kerbals having stats?".

Revisiting the thread I find I agree with your statement here, being that an experienced kerbal could operate a craft to full power etc while a less experienced one might pn;y have the skill to use 90% of the power available to them but the physics of the craft do not change. As you say, a very similar result for the player but the underlying logic is better.

Back to the original point of the thread though.

What, if any, are the affects of bad*ss, stupidity and courage in the game?

Are they completely pointless?

[John FX]

And revisiting my thread a year later, rather than start a fresh thread to ask the same question I`ll ask it again here.

 

What is the point in Kerbals having stats (courage,stupidity etc)?

[Wallygator]

This is still a valid question and should not be considered a necro.

As it stands, there is likely no point to Kerbal stats.  However, we have yet to see any plans or architecture relating to stats that would make me change my mind - not to say there are none

[The_Rocketeer]

^^ Agree.

I suspect they are simply a left-over from a time when KSP might have featured more fleshed-out Kerb career development, which has since been downgraded to a low-priority or cancelled feature. As it is, I still quite like the fact that they exist - since all male and all female kerbals look identical to one another it adds a small degree of individuality that goes a step beyond a name, even if it has no deeper function. Being reminded at every recruitment that Kerbals are all a mixture of bravity and stupidity is subtle but effectively conveys something about the species that nothing else in the game (apart perhaps from long spiels of fluff documentation) does.

[John FX]

10 hours ago, The_Rocketeer said:

^^ Agree.

I suspect they are simply a left-over from a time when KSP might have featured more fleshed-out Kerb career development, which has since been downgraded to a low-priority or cancelled feature. As it is, I still quite like the fact that they exist - since all male and all female kerbals look identical to one another it adds a small degree of individuality that goes a step beyond a name, even if it has no deeper function. Being reminded at every recruitment that Kerbals are all a mixture of bravity and stupidity is subtle but effectively conveys something about the species that nothing else in the game (apart perhaps from long spiels of fluff documentation) does.

I totally agree they are a leftover from a time when a lot of things that were being put into the game as placeholders which were supposed to be made into something more. I just think that if there are to be stats they should be made into something more and have an effect and if they are not ever to have an effect they should be removed and some form of individual bio created instead for those that like to roleplay their kerbals.

I would really like to see the individual characteristics of a kerbal make a difference in a career game. As it is, there is absolutely no reason to pick one kerbal over another.

There should be. Or they should not have stats.

[The_Rocketeer]

11 hours ago, John FX said:

they should be made into something more and have an effect and if they are not ever to have an effect they should be removed

If I agreed with this, which I don't, I would still put this as such a low-priority change that it would effectively never happen anyway. The devs have real work to get on with. Removing a neat bit of fluff like this pointless without something better to replace it, and there are more important jobs that really do need doing.

There are many things in KSP that have no effect but help anthropomorphise the kerbs and create the sense that they're individual people whose lives matter, at least a little bit. Their physical features, their names, the crew-view boxes in lower right, even their space-suits - all basically pointless if u don't take them with as part of the package  of kermanity.

[pandaman]

I believe the stats are used to influence/control the animations in the crew thumbnails,  which is a nice touch and adds a little humour which I quite like, but they serve no actual gameplay purpose.

It would be neat if they did have some gameplay function too, maybe as part of an improved experience system for example, but they don't do any harm so I see no benefit in removing them. 

[StahnAileron]

KSP is a physic sim first, game after. Hence the lack (or lacking) of purpose in many aspects of the "game" past the basic "build and launch rockets into space! Or watch it explode..." concept.

None of the current game-side mechanic are really hashed out well and feedback into one another some way.

• There is no true long-term goal or "end-game" gameplay other than what players challenge themselves with.
• "Science" as resource in career is useless after a the tech-tree is filled out.
• Kerbal stats have no gameplay repercussions. (At least none I know of. And BadS is cosmetic/aesthetic/memetic: your kerbals just look calm. They don't "act" any calmer in terms of gameplay because there is no morale/panic mechanic.)
• Kerbal levels/experience are just a token progression system to make you feel like you and/or your kerbals did something.
• The "comm system" is more aesthetic than anything else. (Yes, I know about the comm system update, but it's not here now.)
• Many career missions are lacking productive purpose beyond science, funds, and rep gains. (All those satellites launched just clutter the Tracking Station. Space Station don't do much unless the player repurposes them.)

And others I can't think of right now. KSP is more about engineering than gameplay. I do like the engineering part because KSP is my go to flight sim, to be honest. This is because I get to build my own aircraft. But I have no real use for them because there are no gameplay purposes for them. At least no built-in and convenient to use purposes. I like building things and experimenting a bit, but I also hate trying to come up with solutions for problems I don't have. Coming up with my own problem for my pre-made solution is kinda tedious for me. (I'm a lazy ass at times.)

I love KSP, but I'm seeing it less as a "game" these days and more like a physics/engineering sandbox sim. It's a great program/application, a great idea, and a wonderful tool. However, I can't/won't say it's great game at this point. It's actually a poor game from a purely gameplay point of view. (I have a feeling I might get flamed by the devoted on this last part...)

[John FX]

21 minutes ago, StahnAileron said:

It's actually a poor game from a purely gameplay point of view.

I agree with this and a lot of your post. To paraphrase (i believe shakespeare), simply removing bugs does not a game make. Parts alone do not make a game, neither does physics. Parts and physics together can be a good framework to build a game on but more yet is required.

A game is a combination of many aspects, if any are lacking then the whole game lacks.

IMO the next things that need working on once the current (needed) bug removal passes are done are the gameplay aspects, one of which is giving the kerbals individual attributes that are meaningful in a career game so that mike kerman (a 5 star pilot) can have a difference to mandy kerman (also a 5 star pilot). The game (not the simulation aspect) requires more depth to really be called a game.

Kerbals should be more than just a device to get a surface sample.

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

The devs have real work to get on with. Removing a neat bit of fluff like this pointless without something better to replace it, and there are more important jobs that really do need doing.

Could you name some? Myself I see fleshing out the game side as rather important.

[The_Rocketeer]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

Could you name some? Myself I see fleshing out the game side as rather important.

I'm slightly stunned by this - do you read the forums outside this thread? Bugfixing is the single most serious need that the game has right now. The wheels and struts issues require yet another Unity upgrade. Even in this subforum are dozens, perhaps hundreds for far more legitimate complaints than Kerbal stats. If KSP was a RPG, this issue would be a doorway that can't be opened, just part of the scenery, surrounded by dozens of others that can be opened. Some of the things beyond these doors are beautifully finished, but many go nowhere, or contain broken rooms, or contain unfinished features, or cause the game to crash, or kill the player, or are arguably finished but to a very poor standard. All those open doors are a far higher priority to me than the devs adding yet another one.

Finding a nice-looking door that won't open but creates setting backdrop, and then standing their banging on it demanding to see what lies beyond is pretty churlish imho.

Edited July 30, 2016 by The_Rocketeer

[The_Rocketeer]

Apologies if my tone above was a little confrontational, was not intended as offensive.

@StahnAileron I agree with almost everything you said. KSP falls into this new niche in videogaming where the term 'game' doesn't properly apply. The term 'sandbox' is useful in pointing to what these programs are - they are toys. KSP is not a game, it is a toy (or perhaps a toyset) like LEGO, or a sandbox/sandpit, or even a collection of plushies. The game is something you create alone with your imagination to extract the most fun from the toy.

In this light it's easy to understand the popularity of sandbox videogames - compare the popularity (per human being) of any game, even soccer or cricket (most popular sports in the world), with the relative popularity of simple imaginitive play. No set of rules can come close to the universality of spontaneous play. Therefore KSP shouldn't try to curb (kerb lol ) the freedom of it's players to imagine their own game by evolving into a linear-progress based game. The tech-tree is a good example of how cross-grained such a system can be for many players.

Hope I'm making some sense, if perhaps a little off-topic.

[John FX]

1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:

I'm slightly stunned by this - do you read the forums outside this thread? Bugfixing is

something I have already said should come first...

2 hours ago, John FX said:

IMO the next things that need working on once the current (needed) bug removal passes are done are the gameplay aspects

 

[The_Rocketeer]

@John FX gotta hand it to you, you know how to bat an easy ball. Are you going to address any of the other points I've raised?

[Mjp1050]

On 7/29/2016 at 3:45 AM, John FX said:

And revisiting my thread a year later, rather than start a fresh thread to ask the same question I`ll ask it again here.

 

What is the point in Kerbals having stats (courage,stupidity etc)?

So we can laugh at them. This is a comedic game, after all.

[Hevak]

Well a few mods actually use these stats quite well.  As others said they also influence the kerbal reactions inflight So maybe there were more plans for stock, or maybe it was made for modding. Either way my big question is why do they need to be removed? Really what negative impact do the have on the game? And some people have mad use of them. Or it's just they do nothing to you, so no one needs to have them? I mean if we are going to remove stats may as well get rid of kerbals altogether, they really do nothing. I mean whoopty do you can plant a flag, or remove data from a science part, nothing else to do on Eva,  just automate that and get rid of it all. 

Well unless you have a few mods than all of this matters much more. This is partly the way the game was intended. Also due to posts sort of like this, and others around this forum we have no idea what is really planned by the devs, because you can never freely discuss plans without people getting up in arms. 

Dont forget that the professions had no use at all for a long time and they added a little to it, yeah not much. But now you need pilots and engineers for flying and rovers. And again mods take this even farther.

i don't see stats leaving the game, and I for one hope that they don't. Sorry if having them ruins your gameplay, maybe just try to ignore them since you dont really see the stats all that often.  

Edited July 31, 2016 by Hevak