Kerbal Showers and Magazine Racks

[Jonfliesgoats]

Insead of having sandwiches or some depleteable resource, what if we have our Kerbals go on strike (stop providing SAS or specialist capabilities) after, say a week of mission time?  To keep your Kerbals happy, they want a shower, magazine and music module.

This way we don't need to add a depleteable resource to the game and life support is addressed.  Different showe, magazine and music modules keep different numbers of Kerbals happy.  If they have the capability to shower, the Kerbals stay happy indefinitely.  I like the idea of filthy Kerbals stinking up their capsules, anyway.

There could even be a "Jeb refuses to work until he's had a shower." message.  Rather than sandwiches and oxygen, we could add a simpler, funny Kerbal morale mechanic.

[peteletroll]

There's a mod called "Snacks", very similar to what you want.

Edit: but Snacks are depletable...

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by peteletroll

[Red Iron Crown]

2 hours ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

This way we don't need to add a depleteable resource to the game and life support is addressed.

This statement is self-contradictory in my opinion.

[Galileo]

This is already capable of happening.  Just download TAC life support or USI life support and edit the cfg to whatever you see fit. For example,  change the water resource to "showers" seeing as you will need water to have showers it would be an easy thing to change. You can even set it to where Kerbals don't work if they don't have what they need instead of dying. It's a very simple thing to do. However, I think it would be a bit strange for a kerbal to have the capability to shower in a mk1 capsule.. No space for a shower. 

Technically,  even showers and magazines would have to be "depletable" in order for Kerbals to go on strike. If they weren't,  you might as well be playing stock. What you are suggesting is possible but things would absolutely have to be depletable otherwise,  you are just using your imagination  

Edited September 12, 2016 by Galileo

[Hupf]

With USI LS, you have the secondary "habitation" value computed for each craft which sets an upper limit on mission duration. You would increase it by adding more crew modules, with certain types (cuppola) giving a bonus. Basically this accounts for kerbals wanting it nice and cozy (your showers).

[Jonfliesgoats]

Like USI LS, I am suggesting is a maximum mission duration depending on access to a hab modules.  Of course, previous comments are accurate, time itself is a depleteable resource so I am a hypocrite.  Ideally Jeb could grow 5 o'clock shadow and Valentina would get baggy eyes when maximum mission duration without a habitation module is exceeded.

Life support as a consideration is worth adding to stock KSP, but it should be life support "lite" or else we get into carbon dioxide concentrations, waste recycling, sanitary construction requirements and other technical stuff that makes nerds like me squeal with delight.  The techno-lust doesn't stop.  Even with remote tech networks properly set up, we could make our probes go dumb when they are surrounded by hot, ionized gas.  Eventually, the game would be such a nerd-heavy experience that only six people would play it.  

So, I guess it's a good thing that I don't get my way.

 

As an aside, I really like the mod with the Bigelow Aerospace-like inflatable modules.  Those would be handy hab modules to lift.

[Snark]

There's a pretty good discussion of the life-support question over here:

...Broadly speaking, suggestions on life support seem to break down into two categories:

• "Life support", i.e. based on consumables, when it runs out kerbals die or otherwise have problems
• "Habitation requirements", i.e. quality-of-life things that aren't consumable but do add a lot of space/mass requirements

(those are my terms for 'em, for lack of better ones)

Those two things are fairly orthogonal to each other, and have different effects on gameplay.  And they have different audiences.  Some people love the idea of "life support" and hate the idea of "habitation requirements"; some are the other way around; some want both; some want neither.

It's part of what makes the topic of life support such a thorny issue.