What is the point in kerbals having stats?

[Luis]

the game could alter time compression ... to screw up burn times), how your craft is pointing (lag control inputs), and even lagging throttle commands. Note none of these would be constant, they'd constantly change so you could not get used to it.

If they ever did this I would refuse to update. That sounds horrible.

[bv1]

Dang-it! already has a system of stats for kerbals--they have to be trained in order to be able to fix parts. Having multiple kerbals, then, is useful because each can be specialized in certain areas.

[tater]

If they ever did this I would refuse to update. That sounds horrible.

That's what pilot skill means. It doesn't need to be much to mess with efficiency. You slightly over burn, chase the marker, and burn a correction. It could be off by just a fraction of a degree, and a tenth of a second here and there. Or the burn could be executed perfectly, but the marker is placed off by a couple seconds (small change over a burn of any length).

Obviously, I prefer the idea of having AI kerbals, but my suggestion is exactly what it would mean to have some accounting of Kerbal skill in piloting. The physics buff offered was entirely positive, and made no sense. A pilot with 100% stupidity should be as dumb as is allowed to still be an astronaut .

[kujuman]

To actually address the OP, kerbals have stats because they've always had stats. The three we have were probably always intended to be placeholders. That said, kerbal stats do affect the game somewhat: The kerbal's expressions are partly determined by their stats (as a response to things going on around them). Hence jeb's stupid grin.

[Red Iron Crown]

I went on at length about this topic in the poll thread in General Discussion, I'll repost my thoughts on it here (forgive the incoming wall of text):

Spacecraft efficiency should be based on how cleverly the player has constructed the ship, period. As the player gets more practice in building ships and choosing parts, their ships will naturally get more efficient. Ship design is a player skill that is rewarded in game already, making kerbal experience affect it is both unrealistic and an unnecessary hurdle.

Piloting skill is also in the realm of the player, not the kerbal. The player learns to better control ships through actually piloting ships in different situations; there's already a natural experience mechanic at play here already as there is with design. Making a skilled player have to grind away at levelling up a character is just frustration for them.

From a simulation perspective, having kerbal experience affect ship efficiency and piloting is bad. Spacecraft are not cars with performance waiting to be unleashed by those willing to void their warranties, nor is an astronaut likely to make performance tweaks that haven't already been discovered by the team of rocket scientists and engineers. Similarly, pilot skill is almost a non-factor in spacecraft performance in real life given that they're almost never piloted manually.

From a gameplay perspective, having kerbal experience affect ship efficiency and piloting is still bad. It makes it harder for new players as levelling up is harder for them and they're more likely to lose kerbals, so they have to play with the handicap of kerbal inexperience longer. It is more tedious for experienced players as they have to grind out those levels to get best performance. It doesn't matter whether such things are implemented as boosts for more experienced kerbals or penalties for inexperienced kerbals, the effect is exactly the same.

Then, from a later post:

I'm not against kerbal experience at all, or greater differentiation among kerbals, or creating reasons to make keeping kerbals alive desirable; but I don't think improving ship performance through kerbal stats is a good way to do it.

The realism reasons for that have been discussed to death in this thread already, so I won't rehash them. Instead I'll explain why I think it's a bad idea from a gameplay perspective:

- It changes the relationship between sandbox and career modes. If kerbal experience buffs craft performance, then it becomes easier to build craft suitable to a mission and fly those missions in career mode. This is backwards, sandbox should be the easier of the modes as it is supposed to be free of career mode restraints, of which kerbal experience is one. If instead kerbal inexperience nerfs craft performance, then sandbox loses its viability as a test simulator for career mode (a scenario that many players use). Their craft that performs adequately in the sandbox may not be up to the task when inexperience penalties are applied. So either career mode features "easy mode" spaceflight or sandbox becomes less useful as a proving ground for designs.

- It diminishes the core gameplay of KSP. At its heart, KSP's play is about designing and flying spacecraft. Kerbal experience affecting craft performance makes the player's skill at those things less important; to some degree deficiencies in design or piloting skill can be offset by levelling up the kerbals.

- It makes the game harder for new players. New players generally kill more kerbals, so it will be harder for them to have experienced kerbals at the controls. This means that new players have to struggle with the performance handicap of unskilled pilots for longer.

- It makes the game more tedious for experienced players. Veterans often want to maximize performance, with a kerbal experience mechanic that increases craft performance they have to grind out the levels for their kerbals if they want to achieve that.

- KSP is about rocket science, it's right in the tagline "It's only rocket science". Experience improving part performance goes against that ideal, it's rocket magic. Maybe some players find that desirable, but it would seem to go against the vision of the game.

All that sort of begs the question: How would I make experience relevant?

I'll ignore the idea of buffs to science, reputation and funds as they are fairly obvious (and some feel they're adequately handled by strategies, etc). So here's a few other ways experience could be made relevant (some of which have been mentioned by others already):

- Qualifications. A level 1 pilot might be able to pilot a craft with up to 250 thrust. A level 2 might be able to pilot one with 650. Exceed the amount of thrust that a pilot is qualified to control and control is lost. The numbers are arbitrary and for example purposes, but it could create interesting scenarios where the main pilot is killed or lost and the less skilled copilot has to "limp home" with reduced thrust.

- Specialization. Require trained kerbals to operate certain pieces of equipment. A payload specialist might be able to operate docking ports and RCS. A scientist might be required to operate certain pieces of science equipment or take surface samples. A systems specialist might be required to operate an electrical system consisting of more than a certain number of parts. All these specializations might be graduated into levels, too. This could make multiple-kerbal crews relevant and desirable; as it is now there is almost no purpose in sending more than one to a destination.

- Leadership. A veteran kerbal might be placed in a command role, where his or her experience can make the other kerbals in the crew more effective at their roles.

So there are lots of ways Squad could make kerbal experience relevant and interesting and make which kerbals are in which seats an important consideration, which I think is the end goal of the experience system.

TL;DR: Not wanting kerbal experience/stats affecting physics is not the same as wanting them to be meaningless, they should be made meaningful in other ways. Affecting the physics is bad for both simulation accuracy and good gameplay.

[peadar1987]

And to add to that, maybe an engineering and science specialism could be made more in-depth by expanding certain areas of the game.

For example, have several tiers of damage to parts. If you bump an engine too hard, or run it too hot, it gets damaged before it explodes. A Kerbal with good engineering skills can fix it, and the higher their skill, the closer to full condition they can get it.

Fuel tanks could leak, joints could lose their stiffness, batteries lose their charge, but all based on the amount of abuse you give them, not some random element to the game.

Piloting and construction should be left up to the player, but even with these systems, you get meaningful roles for engineer, scientist, and mission commander.

Piloting stats can just add a bit more bling to your Kerbals. It would be cool if your ace pilots got to wear aviators, and got ribbons and medals on their uniforms (but mainly aviators, make it happen Squad!!)

[tater]

One, I'm against changing the physics of parts, period, we are in total agreement there. Piloting is none the less a skill.

Piloting skill is also in the realm of the player, not the kerbal. The player learns to better control ships through actually piloting ships in different situations; there's already a natural experience mechanic at play here already as there is with design. Making a skilled player have to grind away at levelling up a character is just frustration for them.

It entirely depends on how you wish to play the game. You could make the same argument about an "experienced role-player" not wanting to "grind" a new character after his guy gets killed in a long standing game, but if that is not a risk, then the game is not role-playing, it's munchkinism. I'm fine with varied skill pilots, even if they by themselves crash, or make some maneuvers a bit of a pain.

From a simulation perspective, having kerbal experience affect ship efficiency and piloting is bad. Spacecraft are not cars with performance waiting to be unleashed by those willing to void their warranties, nor is an astronaut likely to make performance tweaks that haven't already been discovered by the team of rocket scientists and engineers. Similarly, pilot skill is almost a non-factor in spacecraft performance in real life given that they're almost never piloted manually.

If what you say is true, then every player reading this should be as good at flying in Kerbal as Scott Manley, and should have been from the moment they started playing KSP. Since we know they are not, then different pilots WILL use different amounts of fuel/RCS to do a rendezvous/docking, or precision landing based upon skill. They will also be better/worse at executing a transfer burn at a node. On the first 2 examples I'd imagine the differences are profound. For a long node burn, not so much % wise. I am not saying to alter the parts, I think that player steering/timing would need to be messed with if you must consider the player as roleplaying the world's stupidest astronaut, or they have AI pilots and have the AI screw up their steering/timing based upon skill. The UPPER limit would be perfect, no "buffs."

rom a gameplay perspective, having kerbal experience affect ship efficiency and piloting is still bad. It makes it harder for new players as levelling up is harder for them and they're more likely to lose kerbals, so they have to play with the handicap of kerbal inexperience longer. It is more tedious for experienced players as they have to grind out those levels to get best performance. It doesn't matter whether such things are implemented as boosts for more experienced kerbals or penalties for inexperienced kerbals, the effect is exactly the same.

It's not at all bad, it's just different. Add AI pilots, and new players can chose to manually fly to learn (AI pilots would have no penalties when the player flies), and they could let the AI do it if they were not confident in their own ability for that particular function. If they fly themselves in the case of AI pilots, there is in fact zero change. The use of AI would likely be more experienced players not wanting to do repetitive launches, etc, anyway. Win-win. The change of failure due to bad piloting by AI is a gameplay PLUS, as it creates novel situations for the player to deal with (rescue operations, repair missions, etc).

- It changes the relationship between sandbox and career modes. If kerbal experience buffs craft performance, then it becomes easier to build craft suitable to a mission and fly those missions in career mode. This is backwards, sandbox should be the easier of the modes as it is supposed to be free of career mode restraints, of which kerbal experience is one. If instead kerbal inexperience nerfs craft performance, then sandbox loses its viability as a test simulator for career mode (a scenario that many players use). Their craft that performs adequately in the sandbox may not be up to the task when inexperience penalties are applied. So either career mode features "easy mode" spaceflight or sandbox becomes less useful as a proving ground for designs.

I'm entirely against buffs, as I have said. The best possible pilot manages to use his rocket (identical in every way to all other rockets of the same design) with maximal efficiency. He docks with 10 RCS puffs instead of 50. He uses the most efficient rendezvous instead of iteratively zeroing relative velocity, then heading directly at the target, etc. Same rocket, different fuel use.

- It diminishes the core gameplay of KSP. At its heart, KSP's play is about designing and flying spacecraft. Kerbal experience affecting craft performance makes the player's skill at those things less important; to some degree deficiencies in design or piloting skill can be offset by levelling up the kerbals.

I beg to differ. The devs clearly want skill to be a thing (or we would not have seen the physics-breaking buff idea in the first place. They have also made the overall space program a substantial focus. Having pilots able to act autonomously would not only not diminish core gameplay, it would enhance it---to the extent far-flung, concurrent operations are a thing.

- It makes the game harder for new players. New players generally kill more kerbals, so it will be harder for them to have experienced kerbals at the controls. This means that new players have to struggle with the performance handicap of unskilled pilots for longer.

One, I'm a pretty new player, and I only ever managed to kill any via things like tome-compression mistakes, or in a notable case when I failed to realize that I could not reenter 2 craft at more or less the same time. Both were on good paths for reentry and would have needed nothing more than an AI pilot to pop the chute. AI pilots would have saved my largest loss of kerbal life so far (a full mk1-2).

- It makes the game more tedious for experienced players. Veterans often want to maximize performance, with a kerbal experience mechanic that increases craft performance they have to grind out the levels for their kerbals if they want to achieve that.

I'm somewhat experienced, and I feel exactly the opposite. BTW, with some sort of actual piloting skill in game (either AI, or making player inputs less accurate for low-skill pilots) then control systems become a thing in the tech tree. You could have stuff controlled from the ground or flight computer and have pilot skill mitigated/removed, but at additional cost. So a cheap, and "very kerbal" program might have "full manual" pods, while another might aim for advanced flight controls.

- KSP is about rocket science, it's right in the tagline "It's only rocket science". Experience improving part performance goes against that ideal, it's rocket magic. Maybe some players find that desirable, but it would seem to go against the vision of the game.

I'm entirely against the physics buff stuff, we are in agreement. Having the pilots be less skilled in operating the craft is completely different. A mechanism that is used in some FPS games is having aim wobble if you have a sight picture for any length of time, or even to have rounds have a small cone of error instead of hitting the X perfectly every time. The goal is to simulate outcomes. All the ballistics can be perfect, but if a guy with a mouse, with no fear can put all his rounds in the same hole, realistic outcomes become impossible. I'd think the goal would be realistic results with varied pilots.

- Qualifications. A level 1 pilot might be able to pilot a craft with up to 250 thrust. A level 2 might be able to pilot one with 650. Exceed the amount of thrust that a pilot is qualified to control and control is lost. The numbers are arbitrary and for example purposes, but it could create interesting scenarios where the main pilot is killed or lost and the less skilled copilot has to "limp home" with reduced thrust.

This is somehow more realistic than AI pilots, or altering actual piloting based on skill? "Sorry, your astronaut can't launch as he needs another 30 seconds in orbit to be qualified for this rocket that is 1% higher thrust than his last one."

- Specialization. Require trained kerbals to operate certain pieces of equipment. A payload specialist might be able to operate docking ports and RCS. A scientist might be required to operate certain pieces of science equipment or take surface samples. A systems specialist might be required to operate an electrical system consisting of more than a certain number of parts. All these specializations might be graduated into levels, too. This could make multiple-kerbal crews relevant and desirable; as it is now there is almost no purpose in sending more than one to a destination.

This idea I like.

- Leadership. A veteran kerbal might be placed in a command role, where his or her experience can make the other kerbals in the crew more effective at their roles.

Also OK.

Affecting the physics is bad for both simulation accuracy and good gameplay.

Affecting rocket parts (other than maybe repair) is indeed universally bad. Affecting how they fly is another story entirely.

[Red Iron Crown]

tater, for the sake of brevity I'm not going to deep quote that post.

If (and it's a mighty big if) kerbals are ever able to operate a spacecraft without player intervention then piloting skill would make a lot more sense. Until then, I would prefer to have no modifiers between my controls and how the ship operates.

One, I'm a pretty new player, and I only ever managed to kill any via things like tome-compression mistakes, or in a notable case when I failed to realize that I could not reenter 2 craft at more or less the same time.

I think I can safely say that you are not the average new player if that is the case. I killed hundreds, if not thousands, of kerbals getting to the moderately skilled level I'm at now. I still kill them occasionally, though not nearly as often as I once did.

[tater]

I play with FAR/DRE/KIDS/etc, too. Didn't think it was even possible to kill them in stock as long as I have a chute on the pod.

I understand the frustration of having something mess with control, but it is possible to imagine a system where you honestly would not know it was happening I think. Right now you place a node, for example. You know it happens in 5 minutes, 37 seconds, say. You have a 4 second burn, so you do it at T -2s. If the game delayed your burn by some small fraction of a second, you'd never notice. If the game told you 5 min 37s til the burn, but it was in fact 5' 27" you'd be off by 10 seconds, but never know. (you'd click, and the game would tell you the time wrong, but form the maneuver based on where the node actually was). RCS burns could have an error cone. Tiny, but enough that you'd do a few corrections here and there. I bet it would be possible to make it pretty hard to tell (though I prefer the AI idea).

[John FX]

To restate something already said many times, the effect that kerbals have does not have to be a buff. Higher skilled kerbals could simply not nerf as much.

This makes the arguments against buffing moot as the best you could get would be to match sandbox. This is how it should be.

Also, the stats of a kerbal do not have to directly represent the abilities of that specific kerbal.

What if the `stupidity` stat for example referred to the (invisible but ever present) ground crew? Each rocket may well have their own ground crew and their skill in building the rocket would directly affect its physics. The higher the stupidity the further away from `ideal` or `sandbox quality` the ISP, fuel levels etc move (to within maybe 5%). This provides a more realistic modelling of building a rocket, improves gameplay and extends playability for the more experienced player.

The only way arguments against changing craft physics have validity is if every craft was built exactly the same with no margin of error at all which is more unrealistic than having a variable to refer to the variability in construction. I agree that just changing a pilot should not change the craft but there is no real argument against changing craft stats ever.

Maybe this could be built into the progression for the VAB. A better VAB would build better rockets...

I would completely agree that the ground crew (or VAB) should have their own stats of some form to represent this in a more common sense way. There seems to be less and less reasons for the kerbal pilots themselves to have stats though still as all ways of representing them have been rejected.

There seems to be a big reaction to making anything better than sandbox and I agree with that because every game has sandbox as the `do stuff in the ultimate way with no restrictions` but that simply means that a career game should have reducing nerfs as a progression method instead of buffs.

This would make sense of why the IQ stat for kerbals is stupidity, the less stupid you are the less you nerf your craft.

EDIT :

Spacecraft efficiency should be based on how cleverly the player has constructed the ship, period.

And I disagree with this.

I would say that "Spacecraft efficiency should be based on how cleverly the player has constructed the ship with negative modifiers in a career game based on the quality of your VAB and the crew assembling the craft"

Piloting skill is also in the realm of the player, not the kerbal. The player learns to better control ships through actually piloting ships in different situations; there's already a natural experience mechanic at play here already as there is with design. Making a skilled player have to grind away at levelling up a character is just frustration for them.

- Qualifications. A level 1 pilot might be able to pilot a craft with up to 250 thrust. A level 2 might be able to pilot one with 650. Exceed the amount of thrust that a pilot is qualified to control and control is lost. The numbers are arbitrary and for example purposes, but it could create interesting scenarios where the main pilot is killed or lost and the less skilled copilot has to "limp home" with reduced thrust.

How do you propose to limit the ability of the kerbals to fly the craft while at the same time keeping piloting skill in the realm of the player, not the kerbal?

Your ideas seem... contradictory. Also, your idea for kerbals having limits to their ability to control thrust and so forth sounds to me a lot like the original idea proposed by SQUAD, you just propose a nerf instead of a buff. I also think that there should be no buffs but nerfs instead.

Edited November 10, 2014 by John FX

[cantab]

the stats of a kerbal do not have to directly represent the abilities of that specific kerbal.

What if the `stupidity` stat for example referred to the (invisible but ever present) ground crew?

That's counterintuitive to frankly ridiculous. You think that each individual astronaut has their own dedicated ground crew not shared with their colleagues? And that a three-kerbal ship would have what, a triplicated ground crew that somehow don't get in each other's way but also do no better than a regular crew? A mishmash drawn from normally three different ground crews that magically end up as the average and aren't hurt by never having worked together before?

[r4pt0r]

Red Iron Crown, With your "Qualification" bit at the end of your big post, would you elaborate? Without a docking port specialist for example, will I not be allowed to launch a ship that has ports, or will the ports just never work until a trained kerbal is onboard?

[Red Iron Crown]

Red Iron Crown, With your "Qualification" bit at the end of your big post, would you elaborate? Without a docking port specialist for example, will I not be allowed to launch a ship that has ports, or will the ports just never work until a trained kerbal is onboard?

I was thinking to operate the port, perhaps with differing levels of skill/xp for the different ports. Note that docking skill was just an off-the-cuff example that may have unexpected undesirable effects on gameplay, it might be better to have other skills. The crux of the idea is that the skill/xp is a pass/fail proposition; either the crew has a kerbal that can operate the part or it does not, so ship behavior is not changed aside from things being disabled or enabled.

[tater]

The "qualification" idea smacks of "leveling," which is a universally cruddy game mechanic.

[Red Iron Crown]

Possibly, just a partially-formed idea for me. Maybe it would turn out to be cruddy.

[tater]

I get the idea, and at least it's more like aspects of real life than most leveling… it's just that in a game, you might have a guy manage to land, say a few km from an abandoned lander. He walks to it, climbs aboard… but is not allowed to fly it because he lacks "qualification." Yeah, a stretch, but you get the idea

[Red Iron Crown]

Sorry, John FX, I missed your edit earlier.

I would say that "Spacecraft efficiency should be based on how cleverly the player has constructed the ship with negative modifiers in a career game based on the quality of your VAB and the crew assembling the craft"

Nerfs are not substantially different from buffs in my mind. Using a nerf system breaks the ability to use sandbox as a test bed for designs to use in career mode, a not uncommon scenario especially among "hard-mode" players.

How do you propose to limit the ability of the kerbals to fly the craft while at the same time keeping piloting skill in the realm of the player, not the kerbal?

Your ideas seem... contradictory. Also, your idea for kerbals having limits to their ability to control thrust and so forth sounds to me a lot like the original idea proposed by SQUAD, you just propose a nerf instead of a buff. I also think that there should be no buffs but nerfs instead.

Perhaps I'm not explaining it well. 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.

[Francois424]

Personally. there is one thing that would be cool about kerbal experience even *without* getting into skillsets and other thing like that.

If a Kerbal becomes experienced enough (ie: you always bring him/her home), they gain the "Badass" status. If you want to push a bit more... add a color tier or 3 to the mix. So everyone but the big 3 startd with a white suit. And then as they get closer to the BadS, their suit changes. From white to pearl, pearl to light brown, and brown to red(or pink for ladies, why not)... that last color is the BadAss status.

It would have to take a lot of time, and different action give more XP. Simply lifting off or docking give small amounts, but landing on another body gives the most. (hey just an Idea)

I for one would probably pick a team of a dozen kerbals or so and try to be extra carefull with them.

No need to alter performance, they just don't freak as much as they used to (like Jebediah)

just a few thoughts

[JimmyAgent007]

i havent read everyones suggestions about xp, skills, stats, and so on but for a small part, what if say you have a space plane, it takes time to speed up. would a better pilot be able to get things up to speed faster? doesnt change the ISP or anything else, just a bit faster on the uptake for the throttle. No effect with rockets really. Just an idea i was wondering about.

aside from that, I think eventually we are going to have different 'jobs' like pilot or engineer or scientist. pilots fly the ships, engineers fix things (not talking random failures, i dont like them) and scientists run the more complex science stuff. however, they cant do each others jobs. pilots cant fix solar panels, engineers cant run a lab, scientists cant fly the ship. there might be some overlap for emergencies if the pilot went EVA and hit the Mun.

I know part modifying skills are off the list, what about EVA improvements like a bit of extra pack fuel. to represent l337 skillz with the jetpack.

[Red Iron Crown]

i havent read everyones suggestions about xp, skills, stats, and so on but for a small part, what if say you have a space plane, it takes time to speed up. would a better pilot be able to get things up to speed faster? doesnt change the ISP or anything else, just a bit faster on the uptake for the throttle. No effect with rockets really. Just an idea i was wondering about.

I'm curious how you would define "space plane" and "rocket" here. There's a lot of overlap.

[JimmyAgent007]

I'm curious how you would define "space plane" and "rocket" here. There's a lot of overlap.

if it needs intake air, then its a plane in the context of my suggestion, it takes time to get max thrust while the engines spin up. if you set throttle to 100% rockets give max thrust right away. i dont do planes a whole lot but thats how i see the difference

[Red Iron Crown]

Ah I see, so you're thinking air-breathing engines should spool up faster for experienced pilots, gotcha.

[JimmyAgent007]

Ah I see, so you're thinking air-breathing engines should spool up faster for experienced pilots, gotcha.

yes. good pilots can work some serious mojo with their craft. it wouldnt get in the way of swapping craft on the exchange or moving to and from sandbox but it would be a neat little addition.

[John FX]

If we actually imagine flying a spacecraft and look at some images of real craft, there are a huge amount of controls and often the astronaut needs to ask mission control how to use finer points of flying the craft in edge type scenarios. Depending on the experience of the pilot, the ground crew, the guys that made the craft, the guys who wrote the documentation and the guy passing on the information from the documentation there can be a different action performed on the craft. That would affect the performance of the craft while not affecting the physics governing the performance of the craft.

For example,

"Hi mission control, I`m getting an overpressure readout on engine number four"

"Please wait, reduce thrust to 80% until we respond"

"roger"

"OK, we can say that you can ignore that readout, increase engine thrust to 100%"

is a likely conversation.

Also likely is

"Hi mission control, I`m getting an overpressure readout on engine number four"

"Please wait, reduce thrust to 80% until we respond"

"roger"

"OK, we don`t have solid info on that keep thrust at 80% and keep an eye on that overpressure readout. Keep us informed"

This would depend on one of the techies during the design of the craft having a lower stupidity and spotting an edge scenario where thrust may have to be reduced, doing some calculations and finding the thrust does not need to be reduced.

Now a badass (idiot) may ignore that as they have "the right stuff" (this may have been a coffee talk with that exact techie about craft performance) while a less experienced pilot may not. Maybe the documentation did not mention the procedure for dealing with an overpressure readout. Maybe there was a note from a techy who said that under heavy G when fuel levels are lower than 20% the overpressure readout can be safely ignored.

I`m not too convinced `badass` should be a stat...

This is the mechanism whereby a single stat (pilot stupidity maybe?) refers to a myriad of other things which are not `magically making a craft put out more or less thrust because of the pilots experience` yet would result in less thrust being applied as a result of the pilots experience.

It`s not as simple as if they could just push harder on the throttle to go faster, like some seem to be imagining. In such a simplified game the real reasons for lower performance have to also be simplified and the variable that represents them can be misapplied or seem counterintuitive.

TL;DR

The pilot does not have to affect the physics of the craft for their stats to affect its performance....

If we could move on from that it would be great.

[Wahgineer]

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.)