Gripes About Kerbal Experience

[The Jedi Master]

Now, when they first announced Kerbal experience, I pictured an achievement system, like Final Frontier. I can no longer play without Final Frontier if I want to care about my kerbals, so I thought this was awesome. However, when they started showing 0.90, it turned out to be a class system. "OK," I thought. "Not quite what I had in mind, but it could still be cool." But here's what we got:

• An arbitrary class system with arbitrary rules--so you're telling me an engineer can't press the big blue button that says "SAS"?
  
• An absolute necessity for pilots, limiting science options in the early game and even part of the midgame
  
• No way to reassign the randomly-selected classes, meaning you might not have the classes you need to fulfill your mission
  
• Unnecessary complexity
  

So, yeah, I hate it. Also, I think Bill and Bob should swap classes. Just saying.

Don't get me wrong--I still love KSP, and will fight anyone who says that Squad is EA-like tooth and claw. It's just that this update, as the first impression of a new stage of development, has kind of disappointed me. Building upgrades are too expensive (and the first two tiers are way uglier than the barn, TBH), and the gizmos really aren't as cool as they were made out to be. The best part is the new part sorting system, which is kind of sad. But the experience system is my biggest gripe.

[/rant]

[Frank327]

Actually you can pretty quickly do without pilots. The second probe core has the stabilizing system and if you combine that with solar panels, every craft can have SAS just like in earlier versions.

I disagree by the way that pilots are vital in the early game. You just have to build your rockets completely symmetrically and keep them managable with winglets/gimbal/stabilizing parts. None of the classes are really all that important. But I'll probably take one of each on my interplanetary missions just in case.

[CalculusWarrior]

I agree; the classes don't feel very useful, particularly the engineers. However, I feel like SQUAD knows this as well, which is why they made a five-tier system but only three tiers of actual upgrades. I feel like they will add more perks as time goes on, based on the community's response to the current ones.

My gripe about the system is also the lack of Final Frontier-like ability. All I want to know is where the kerbals have been! It could be as simple as little pictures of planets/moons next to their names (perhaps stars too, for the first landings?). I want my kerbals to have history!

[Pulstar]

Doesn't the tooltip inside the astronaut complex list the log of the kerbal when you hover over him? It listed how much XP and from what mine got.

[Whirligig Girl]

An arbitrary class system with arbitrary rules--so you're telling me an engineer can't press the big blue button that says "SAS"?

SAS is no longer a craft system. SAS is now Pilots actually holding a craft stable.

[The Jedi Master]

SAS is no longer a craft system. SAS is now Pilots actually holding a craft stable.

Which is arbitrary and unnecessary.

[Whirligig Girl]

Also, I think Bill and Bob should swap classes. Just saying.

Bob has always been low stupidity and Bill has always been high stupidity. So you think that it would be logical to have a default scientist be stupid?

- - - Updated - - -

Which is arbitrary and unnecessary.

I disagree.

[SkyRender]

I disagree.

Why, exactly? All that does is makes one class of Kerbal absolutely necessary at a time when one of the other two classes (Scientist) is far more critical. It's not a fair trade-off for less experienced players, it's literally saying "you either put a Pilot in your craft or you will not go to space today". That's bad design, plain and simple. More to the point, as it stands there are zero benefits to putting a Scientist or Engineer on board before they get to rank 1, so why does the Pilot class deserve to have such an overbearing and essential role right from the get-go?

[Pulstar]

You know what, SkyRender has a point. Engineers and Scientists could use some level 0 bonuses. Early game is biased towards pilots mostly due to smaller pods and crafts. Though I figure that with bigger and more complex missions you will want one of each Kerbal type. Engineers at this point are a "don't need them unless you fail" role (with the exception of parachute repacking), which makes them more situational, where as pilots make your life easier and prevent failing, while scientists are just "get more stuff".

Still, if you look at spaceflight history, it was pilots first, scientists started flying later on IIRC (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

Overall I was hoping the classes would be more open in skill development. As in I could have a Pilot with some science skill or an Engineer that is also a backup pilot. Jack of all trades master of none would still apply, but some skill diversification would be a good idea.

[klgraham1013]

Why, exactly? All that does is makes one class of Kerbal absolutely necessary at a time when one of the other two classes (Scientist) is far more critical. It's not a fair trade-off for less experienced players, it's literally saying "you either put a Pilot in your craft or you will not go to space today". That's bad design, plain and simple. More to the point, as it stands there are zero benefits to putting a Scientist or Engineer on board before they get to rank 1, so why does the Pilot class deserve to have such an overbearing and essential role right from the get-go?

Because he's the pilot? As in, he pilots the vehicle? Seems like a pretty necessary role to me.

[SkyRender]

Because he's the pilot? As in, he pilots the vehicle? Seems like a pretty necessary role to me.

In real life, absolutely. In a game, it breaks the balance horribly and effectively ensures that nobody will ever use the other two roles until they can reasonably get two Kerbals on board their craft. KSP is not real life, and it's quite an acceptable break from reality to establish a gameplay mechanic that's properly balanced but unrealistic. Because the way it is now is not fun or interesting, and only removes viable options from the player instead of adding to them.

[Greenfire32]

why does the Pilot class deserve to have such an overbearing and essential role right from the get-go?

Because before you put people in cars, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot.

Because before you put people in trains, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot.

Because before you put people in planes, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot.

Because before you put people in space...

In real life, absolutely. In a game, it breaks the balance horribly and effectively ensures that nobody will ever use the other two roles until they can reasonably get two Kerbals on board their craft. KSP is not real life, and it's quite an acceptable break from reality to establish a gameplay mechanic that's properly balanced but unrealistic. Because the way it is now is not fun or interesting, and only removes viable options from the player instead of adding to them.

Scientists didn't make it to space until Apollo 17 with Harrison Schmitt being the first of NASA scientist-astronaught group. Until then, many/most/all astronaughts were pilots of some kind (mostly test-pilots). That's how it was in our early days of space exploration, that's how it is in the early days of Kerbal Career.

You know what I would like to rant on? The amount of "Kerbal Career is Haaaaaard, Guys" threads.

It's career. It's space. It's hard.

If it were easy, we'd have colonies on mars and a walmart on the moon.

Now I'm not saying there aren't balancing issue (because there may be some), but I've seen way too many threads that are in the "I don't like it/I cant do it, so it must be poorly designed" category today.

Opinionz

---edit---

re-read my post and while I stand by it, I realize I may come across as dickish in nature. I assure you, this is not my intention.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Greenfire32

[sumghai]

I'd personally like the ability to manually assign roles / expertise to individual Kerbals, including the original three. From what I hear, the current system assigns them randomly based on name.

[SkyRender]

Scientists didn't make it to space until Apollo 17 with Harrison Schmitt being the first of NASA scientist-astronaught group. Until then, many/most/all astronaughts were pilots of some kind (mostly test-pilots). That's how it was in our early days of space exploration, that's how it is in the early days of Kerbal Career.

I re-iterate: realism is an acceptable sacrifice for fun. If it's part of a game and it's reducing the fun, it doesn't matter how realistic it is, it shouldn't be that way.

You know what I would like to rant on? The amount of "Kerbal Career is Haaaaaard, Guys" threads.

It's career. It's space. It's hard.

If it were easy, we'd have colonies on mars and a walmart on the moon.

See my previous statement. Also, see devs' statements to the effect that they want Career mode to be what new players get into. Making it unreasonably hard for new players runs counter to that goal.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I think there are some good basics here but this system definitely needs more work. But good news is it's beta! Thats exactly what this phase is for. Ditto on being able to assign classes, that would be great. I also think the tasks needed to level each class should differ based on that class, ie, engineers in addition to gaining experience based on where they've been should also level based on performing engineering tasks like repairing and repacking. Another task that could require an engineer could be in-flight fuel distribution. Scientists likewise could gain experience from taking samples, retrieving data from experiment parts, and you should need sufficiently leveled scientists to operate a science lab.

Im sure they're thinking about all this. Maybe we could give some more constructive suggestions?

[Sirrobert]

I haven't played yet, so this might not even apply, but I might have an idea to fix some off it

But what if all Kerbals had level 0 skill in the classes they were not specificly trained in? It'd make sense if they all do have some basic understanding off all systems.

Though now that I look at the list of things they can do, that seems to be uterly useless for everything but pilot skills

[SkyRender]

I haven't played yet, so this might not even apply, but I might have an idea to fix some off it

But what if all Kerbals had level 0 skill in the classes they were not specificly trained in? It'd make sense if they all do have some basic understanding off all systems.

Though now that I look at the list of things they can do, that seems to be uterly useless for everything but pilot skills

That's kind of the point I'm making: gameplay-wise, Pilots start out with an extreme edge over their Scientist and Engineer counterparts. It's to such a degree that there is no reason you will ever include an Engineer or a Scientist on board any mission prior to building a 2-Kerbal-capacity craft or installing a higher-level probe core to replace them.

[Carsogen]

An arbitrary class system with arbitrary rules--so you're telling me an engineer can't press the big blue button that says "SAS"?

I prefer to think of it as the pilot performing the stabilization rather than the ship. If I was put at the controls of a jumbo jet it would be MUCH less stable than if you gave it to my pilot friend

I will say that the flaw in this is that there is still a button that says 'SAS' on the dashboard. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense but I guess there has to be some way of displaying SAS in cockpit view.

Cas.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Carsogen

[Frank327]

The starting point of this discussion seems to be that EVERY SHIP NEEDS SAS AND IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT IT WILL SURELY CRASH, which I respectfully disagree with. Most orbital rockets can be easily piloted by scientists or engineers without it going wrong. Sure, it takes a lot more attention to pilot it well, but once you do it, your scientist/engineer will immediately have 1 star. It's only in bigger ships that aren't easy to control where it can become a problem without SAS. But by that time you've probably unlocked or are about to unlock the second tier probe cores.

[Sirrobert]

I prefer to think of it as the pilot performing the stabilization rather than the ship. If I was put at the controls of a jumbo jet it would be MUCH less stable than if you gave it to my pilot friend

I will say that the flaw in this is that there is still a button that says 'SAS' on the dashboard. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense but I guess there has to be some way of displaying SAS in cockpit view.

Cas.

Actually the Jumbo is such an advanced craft that it has autopilot. In KSP terms, it has very advanced probe core build in

[Whirligig Girl]

Why, exactly? All that does is makes one class of Kerbal absolutely necessary at a time when one of the other two classes (Scientist) is far more critical. It's not a fair trade-off for less experienced players, it's literally saying "you either put a Pilot in your craft or you will not go to space today". That's bad design, plain and simple. More to the point, as it stands there are zero benefits to putting a Scientist or Engineer on board before they get to rank 1, so why does the Pilot class deserve to have such an overbearing and essential role right from the get-go?

Because it makes more sense that the Kerbals themselves have something to do with the ship that THEY are supposedly flying! And it's not too far off from reality. In the early days of NASA, all crew were pilots. Even the space shuttle required a manned landing. But as remote control units like probe and satellite computers advanced in technology, they didn't need pilots as badly, and so could relax the requirement for pilots.

Personally, I've liked making a Gemini-like pod using gizmos, and that would be able to store both a pilot and a scientist or engineer. I even have a role-playing requirement that part test contracts have to have an engineer on board no matter what.

But I will say this. I'm not blown away by the KXP system. It could have been better, but I like it. It's fun, and it's kinda the way it was planned even from the beginning of development. Though that doesn't automatically make it good.

In the end, I have to say I'd rather have this than no XP system. Though I think there needs to be more things to break and thus more things to repair for engineers. And it might be cool if scientists could unlock special unique science experiments.

[Kegereneku]

Just a few opinions :

- I like the idea of SAS being advanced technology, as it was originally

- I don't have problem with pilots being more if not the only one important at first. Players are learning to fly anyway

- Classes do not have to be balanced in number at all time, you might hire 10 pilots for 1 scientist at first, but might end up needing 10 scientist and 5 pilots as taxi driver later.

...the later being what happened historically.

At the time of Apollo you needed pilots to help with the limitation of computers.

Nowadays only scientist are being sent to the ISS because you have autopilot for everything.

[Whirligig Girl]

Because before you put people in trains, you test them. Both in the lab and in the field. You need a test pilot.

http://youtu.be/P1GcRMk3fWQ?t=14m20s

Relevant. (The Engine Drivers were....)

[Capt Snuggler]

for me, the Kerbal rolls and XP system is one of the most disappointing developments of late. its just so shallow, but i know its early days.

I believe all Kerbals should have multiple skills in separate fields. their highest skill level should dictate their role.

Pilot skill = dictates ability to perform other tasks during various conditions of space flight. ie. orbiting, high G, flight EVA. Also unlocks more complex SAS functions. (requires expansion)

Engineer skill = dictates the ability to repair broken equipment, repack parachutes etc. reprogramming action groups. in situ construction. part testing. (requires expansion)

Astro Science = dictates the gains from science performed in orbit/space. (requires expansion)

Geo Science = dictates the gains form science performed on surface. (requires expansion)

eg:

Jeb

Pilot = 99

Engineer = 16

Astro = 9

Geo = 12

Here you can see Jeb will make a great pilot, but he will need to train up in engineering or one of the sciences to remain useful once higher level probe computers appear.

He can train up through practice or by observing and learning from his more learned colleagues in the field.

The total sum of all skills equals his total coolness of 136 which would dictate the reputation gains.

Under this system training vehicles and training exercises would become useful. multi seat command pods would be used to train low level Kerbals.

this system would be allot more dynamic has more potential depth while still being easy to understand.

sadly, I don't think this will happen.

*edit.

to clarify. some kerbal applicants will have advanced skills already but they would demand a higher pay.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Capt Snuggler

[Tw1]

Jeb

Pilot = 99

Engineer = 16

Astro = 9

Geo = 12

I initially hoped it would be a system like this, something that resembles fire emblem's weapon skills system. This would enable you to train multiple skills per kerbal, yet have them be far better at one. Under this system, the Original Three would start with big boosts in their respective classes.

I'm not sure it's worth splitting the science skills though, considering time must be spent by the player to develop those skills. I do not mind the system as it is, I think it's partially intended to encourage multi kerbal missions. This is inconvenient at times though.

Perhaps a better system would let a kerbal have a minor, or an advanced kerbal gain the very basic skills of the other types. I'd prefer this to the other system I mentioned above, considering how long it's taking to level up a kerbal, and how many I like to have at the time.

I was quite happy with the roles assigned to the main three though, I have long characterised them as such.

Jeb is obviously the pilot. He loves flying. He's like the movie cliche gung-ho pilot type guy.

Bill is the calmer of the two. His denmor reminds me of some engineers who I know. He smiles when things are good, frowns when there's some cause for concern. (Which can be frequent)

Bob is almost always scared during landing, launching and other stuff, even when things are relatively nominal, he's no rocket enthusiast, he doesn't quite know what's going on in this machine around him. From this I infer his involvement in the space program isn't due to a love of flying, explosions, or huge machines.

Why is he there then? What else does the space program offer? A chance to explore new worlds, and learn about the universe? I think of Bob of having a big desire to know and discover things, something strong enough to overcome his fear of all the scary stuff. He's the scientist.

I do think the engineer role could be expanded though. They could give you more detail about the ships TWR, Delta V per stage, etc.