Make Kerbal Experience more relevant to space program management

[Wallygator]

What would have happened if the only way to space was the result of single being gaining enough experience to pilot a space ship?

Yuri Kerman and Alan Kerman would probably be the only folks to travel the heavens. This due to the fact that it would be cheaper and more reliable to just keep sending them up to get more proficient rather than to spread the risk. If they died, then oh dear… we have to start from scratch all over again.

I assume you think the above would be a ridiculous scenario. But it isn’t in KSP.

I feel this is a core game play issue which could be addressed.

1) Kerbal experience should not be aligned to a single Kerbal but rather to the entirety of the space program. Each time you “push the envelope†your program should gain levels of experience.

2) As a program gains experience, the cost of training kerbals increases. If you lose a kerbal then training up a new one gets ever so much more expensive as your program progresses. Effectively, as you learn more, your training regime becomes deeper, more intensive and also costs more.

I do not envision it being more expensive to train new kerbals in comparison with already experienced Kerbals, rather it would allow a player to obtain experienced Kerbals at a cost in line with the programs stage of advancement (obviously some balancing would be required to get this exactly right.

3) As a result, if you recruit a new pilot and spend the money to train ‘em up, then you can expect a fully capable crewman with all the abilities present considering the stage of your programs advancement. At the same time, this crewman is also quite valuable considering the training investment.

4) A kerbals’ individual accomplishments must be tracked. The more a Kerbal accomplishes as an individual then the more program reputation is lost if the Kerbal is KIA. (Perhaps Apollo 11 and Yuri were not sent back to space because the risk of losing them was considered to be too great).

5) If single Kerbal gains a bit of additional experience (which is then applied to the overall program) which leaves other kernels with lesser capabilities, then the lesser kernels should be allowed to return to the astronaut complex to undergo further training and investment to allow them to take on the new knowledge.

6) All other elements of Kerbal pilot, science and engineer skills could be retained as is - although obviously these will be further refined as the Devs get a better handle on skills and capabilities through the beta adjustment.

Now.. Please discuss…

Edited December 21, 2014 by Wallygator
clarification regarding my posting perspective

[Anquietas314]

1: To some extent this is already in - you could consider science points and/or reputation as a form of program experience. A more explicit form of that might be quite cool though

2:This would actually encourage the behaviour you want addressed; if it's more expensive to train new kerbals than to keep training the old ones, then of course you're not going to do that. I would like to see a deeper training mechanic, but it should be cheaper, not more expensive, to train the new guys than the old

4: The accomplishment tracking is already in, it just isn't displayed clearly on the screen (have a look through your persistence file), but it would definitely be cool to make the loss of a kerbal scale with the experience of that kerbal (since the guy who's been all the way to jool is going to be much more famous than the guy you just sent into a suborbital trajectory).

Overall a pretty good idea though

[Wallygator]

Thanks! and to clarify...

1) Yes, I am suggesting that the current science and reputation system could be further enhanced (with better gameplay) with a more sensible training/experience mechanic.

2) No, I do not envision it being more expensive to train new kerbals in comparison with already experienced Kerbals, rather it would allow a player to obtain experienced Kerbals at a cost in line with the programs stage of advancement (obviously some balancing would be required to get this exactly right)

4) Yes, the persistance data needs to be leveraged more intelligently for sure - Totally agree!

[Anquietas314]

2) No, I do not envision it being more expensive to train new kerbals in comparison with already experienced Kerbals, rather it would allow a player to obtain experienced Kerbals at a cost in line with the programs stage of advancement (obviously some balancing would be required to get this exactly right

Ah okay, that makes more sense. It wasn't clear from the OP though; considering many people will only read that you should probably edit it to clarify (leave the original text there, just add the clarification in-between 2 and 3 - saves confusion with the first couple posts )

[Wallygator]

sounds good. I'll make the edit.