Relic13
commented
5 years ago Yea, I very much agree that Naut training, as it is implemented is generally quite a bad experience all around. It is cumbersome, tedious, and adds very little to game play for how much interaction it requires - so as you said it just becomes a motion of clicking to go through the motions with no real thought process involved.
I had a post in the other thread about that so I'll borrow some of what I said there and reiterate here. I think we should look at what game play elements are good and how to implement them without adding unneeded player management and clicking. Just try to make the interaction seamless for the player as possible.
For example the positive interesting aspects for gameplay that Naut training adds to manned missions:
- Commitment time to utilize any new capsule (thus encourages using older hardware longer).
- Down before missions (longer lead times via mission training, can't really do spur of the moment launches)
- Down time after/between missions (thus requiring extra crew rotations if you want to have frequent missions)
In short, it adds time commitments to manned missions that make it so they can't be launched as last minute as unmanned can. This aspect is pretty good I think, but again, the implementation of achieving it currently is not, because it also adds a ton of unneeded and generally mindless menu clicking. And how retirement works (the quasi randomness of it) just feels quirky (and it is generally unnecessary too since all it forces game play wise is having more nauts in the the active pool to continuously train and monitor). For current decisions: if somebody has trained for a pod, they will almost always want to maintain refreshers and mission readiness on that pod until they switch to a new one. So how it is now is just excessive menu checking to see expiration dates and clicking to refresh these things for no real thought on the decisions.
I think we can retain all of the good game play aspects of the system and also massively reduce the needed player clicking/interaction by doing something like this:
- Basically remove almost all of the current system entirely.
- Keep initial training for each capsule (and thus make it permanent proficiency for the Naut). (Although, honestly this could even be removed too if we just had an automatic delay from when a capsule is unlocked until your nauts could use it, something like X number of uninterrupted days not on missions until they automatically become proficient on the new pod, obviously X duration influenced by stupidity as well as the pod type)
- Increase the Naut downtime after a mission (This then implies that refreshers and future mission training happen in this down time as well)
- Add/increase minimum rollout time for any manned capable launches (Imply that further safety checks / flight ready training happen in this).
So, basically the only player clicking is just choosing to train on a specific capsule (and as said this could even be removed too). Everything else does not require direct player management, but all the good game play effects will still be present for the player (that is to say that manned missions will have down time between missions and longer lead time before launches, and longer lead times to utilize new pods compared to unmanned).
Cheers.
Bornholio
DocRockwell
Right now, astronaut training has worked mostly without bugs for me, but it isn't fun, mainly because it's just a rote motion you have to go through as busywork, without any strategic decisions involved.
There are several changes that could make all the decisions strategic though, and cut down on the busywork:
Ditch the "mission" training and refresher courses. The original proficency is good by making you plan ahead already. These just implement the same concept kind of redundantly and more annoyingly. I think the feature could do without them entirely.
Training should be required to obtain "local control" over a capsule but NOT to simply enter or fill a part for launch. No training is logically required to tell an astronaut "Hey you, sit in this chair and don't push any buttons. Good luck!" In other words, untrained astronauts should be able to be used just like dogs and chimps sent into space, as long as we are willing to include avionics and maintain radio connection and deal with signal delay in exchange.
As a replacement for the "mission" and refresher courses, add other courses that involve more interesting cost/benefit decisions or division of labor. Such as courses that are required to allow engineers to be able to start using kerbal attachment system. Or for scientists to be able to reset certain levels of experiments. Or for any astronaut to be able to be allowed to EVA (like training in the neutral buouyancy water tank facilities). Then, you'd have a strategic choice: train some dudes on everything but wait years for it, or train an EVA 'naut and separately a pilot, and bring both of them along, and be able to launch sooner but need more seats to do the mission. Etc.