Happiness > Lifesupport for future stock station parts

[SlinkyMcman]

Love game, here's idea.

There are a few draw backs to implementing a life support system. They interfere with current save games, it's punishing for casuals, require adding multiple resources to keep track of, and there is already a very robust life support mod community.

That is why I think fleshing out the current happiness system would be a better way to implement uses for future base parts. Right now it's kinda difficult to figure out what is going on with reputation. I think somewhere it says that the longer away from home a kerbal spends his time more reputation you lose(1000 hours and I have no idea)?  There isn't a good way to figure out what the rate of depreciation is because you probably have more than one kerbal out at a time(career player here), and at any rate doesn't seem to make a massive difference unless there are lots of kerbals out at once.

My idea is to give each kerbal a explicit happiness(1-5)  and a corresponding  smiley face based on;

sure-footedness: how recently they've been on gravity, could scale with closeness to kerbin Gs 

comfort:if they've been in EVA/plane parts/lodging parts

excitment:if they have been on a station with entertainment parts, electricity, etc.

A mouse over on portrait could show detailed stats on each category.

The format can be simple such as having 7 total cat and needing 5 checked to be optimal, or it can be more complicated and have varying degrees of effectiveness depending on how long ago the kerbals have been missing out on the good life. Each Tier would give a corresponding decrement to reputation, optionally low happiness lowers their effective star rating, and super optionally if all get to 0, the kerbal would die. Tourists would require a certain Happiness rating to complete a contract successfully, and might tip extra if you keep them very happy the whole way. This also opens up a limitless pool for cool space station parts like;

Space gardens/parks.

Rotating artificial gravity compartments .

Sleeping Quarters.

Space Dodgeball Centers.

pros:

Doesn't break games.

Doesn't break mods.

Doesn't ruin mun trips for noobies.

Gives reason to park kerbals in your sweet stations off planet long-term.

Gives players feed back on currently implemented systems(maybe?, since i don't really know how rep works haha)

Allows for differences between kerbal occupied crafts depending on the distance for travel. Mun trips can be done with command pods for no real loss of happiness, but they would be super unhappy if they spent a 4 year Duna mission on that same ship. Solution: add a greenhouse for recreation(RP that its a farm), a hitchhiker part for comfort, and a .1G rotation chamber for sure-footedness(The Martian).

cons:

BUT WHAT DO THEY EAT!?!?

Interferes with current games.

Adds more complications that could probably be ignored.

So much stuff to keep track of.

Anyways I'm happy this game is getting the maintenance it deserves. Hope you folks like my deaz.

Slinky

Edited November 1, 2018 by SlinkyMcman
BUT WHAT DO THEY EAT!?!?

[DerekL1963]

My thought is that if you want to play The Sims, you should play The Sims.

And welcome to the forums!

Edited October 31, 2018 by DerekL1963

[SlinkyMcman]

Kerbal is the sims in space, imo i'm playing the exact game I want to play.  I kinda read that both ways. Do you not like the idea that one would have to keep track of kerbal's individual happiness in the same way someone would keep track of life support? Or is this a dig at causal gamers, because The Sims isn't a brutally difficult game where it's trivially easy to kill your creations though unintentional neglect (ie LFS>happy because LFS= more realism)?  [snip]

Feels good to be here, thanks!

Edited November 1, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Red Iron Crown]

13 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

There are a few draw backs to implementing a life support system. They interfere with current save games, it's punishing for casuals, require adding multiple resources to keep track of, and there is already a very robust life support mod community.

There are a few draw backs to implementing a telemetry system. They interfere with current save games, it's punishing for casuals, require adding multiple commsats to keep track of, and there is already a very robust telemetry mod community.

There are a few draw backs to implementing a better aero system. They interfere with current save games, it's punishing for casuals, require adding multiple stats to keep track of, and there is already a very robust aerodynamics mod community.

There are a few draw backs to implementing a spaceplane parts system. They interfere with current save games, it's punishing for casuals, require adding dozens of parts to keep track of, and there is already a very robust spaceplane parts mod community.

I think you see where I'm going with this. Nearly every new or improved feature added to the game has these effects, and I don't think the game is the worse for adding them. 

Further, a space game that makes any claim about realism (and KSP does) is incomplete without life support, full stop. It is the big challenge to making crewed missions in real life, it's baffling that this is omitted after all this time and development. Don't like it? I'm sure you'll be able to turn it off in the settings like the telemetry stuff. Or just run uncrewed stuff. 

[SlinkyMcman]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Further, a space game that makes any claim about realism (and KSP does) is incomplete without life support, full stop. It is the big challenge to making crewed missions in real life, it's baffling that this is omitted after all this time and development. Don't like it? I'm sure you'll be able to turn it off in the settings like the telemetry stuff. Or just run uncrewed stuff. 

Those are the actual reasons we will never have a robust stock life support system. The best we are probably going to get is a Happiness system that mimics it. Any system system that implements different function on crew parts needs to fully address all of these issues to make it to the stock game.

"They interfere with current save games" = causes a genocide if you didn't read the patch notes.

None of those additions you cited actually were bad for casuals.

Further i'm not arguing against adding systems to the game, on the contrary, my idea implements concepts that exist irl. Gravity's affects on the body is pretty well known to good(there is a treadmill that simulates gravity on the ISS), you probably don't want to spend 4 years cramped into a 747 seat, and the BFR is going to have a dedicated room purely for recreation. 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by SlinkyMcman
sniped my snip

[Snark]

Some content has been redacted and/or removed.

Folks, let's remember to keep it friendly, please.  We're all pals here, and people are posting in good faith.

Therefore, regardless of what you may think of someone's post, it's not appropriate to accuse them of not being constructive.  It's also not appropriate to snipe at each other-- flame wars and bickering solve nothing, so please don't react to perceived slights by snapping back.  Everyone loses when that happens.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I think happiness could serve as a perfectly suitable stand in for life support. It's basically the same thing with a different name.

I also like how it ties in with tourist missions.

Not a bad idea at all!

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Further, a space game that makes any claim about realism (and KSP does) is incomplete without life support

Absolutely correct.  However, this is not a life support proposal.  It's not even a simplified reasonable simulacrum thereof.  It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of life support.

If anything, it's a morale system - which is a different kettle of fish entirely.

If you want life support look at what TAC-LS or Snacks! does.

If you want to play The Sims, play The Sims.

[SlinkyMcman]

4 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Absolutely correct.  However, this is not a life support proposal.  It's not even a simplified reasonable simulacrum thereof.  It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of life support.

If anything, it's a morale system - which is a different kettle of fish entirely.

If you want life support look at what TAC-LS or Snacks! does.

If you want to play The Sims, play The Sims.

I agree with 100% of this. One of the Pros was that it doesn't break life-support mods. Like the thing T2 can do that modders can't is add really good looking parts to the game.I've sent 4 caravan to Jool, that have never reached there because constructing the space stations was the best part. I want them to add more types of space station parts because, like that's why I play the game making sweet stations. Juggling <1t of snacks for efficiency sake isn't something people who are just learning the game can get behind because learning the game require failing to juggle multiple tons of fuel.  The only way they're going to add them to Stock is if they fit into a a System that is so easy a noob could understand it. Because most of T2's money comes from the type of people who play The Sims. We get the parts in the game, then it's trivial to integrate them into mods.

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by SlinkyMcman
I'm verbose

[Red Iron Crown]

11 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

Those are the actual reasons we will never have a robust stock life support system. The best we are probably going to get is a Happiness system that mimics it. Any system system that implements different function on crew parts needs to fully address all of these issues to make it to the stock game.

I disagree. The developers haven't been overly shy about breaking saves when it comes to adding features to the game, even post 1.0. Even the cosmetic part revamp is doing it do a small degree. 

11 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

None of those additions you cited actually were bad for casuals.

Neither is life support. Literally everyone with the mildest interest in spaceflight knows that you need to bring air, food and water with you to survive in space. It's is unintuitive that it's ignored in KSP, and would be even more counterintuitive if we needed to worry about psychological well-being while ignoring physical. 

11 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

Further i'm not arguing against adding systems to the game, on the contrary, my idea implements concepts that exist irl. Gravity's affects on the body is pretty well known to good(there is a treadmill that simulates gravity on the ISS), you probably don't want to spend 4 years cramped into a 747 seat, and the BFR is going to have a dedicated room purely for recreation. 

If what you propose doesn't change the game or add a new system, then what does it do, exactly? If we have to make accommodations on craft to keep the crew happy, won't that mean that craft already in flight will not be able to do so? How is that any less save breaking than adding LS? 

10 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Absolutely correct.  However, this is not a life support proposal.  It's not even a simplified reasonable simulacrum thereof.  It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of life support.

Can't have life support in the thread title and then say it had nothing to do with life support. One could certainly argue that morale is a part of crew support, indeed several of the LS mods implement some variation of it. 

10 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

If you want life support look at what TAC-LS or Snacks! does.

Not everyone is willing or able to mod their game. This has never been a valid excuse to not include a feature, or to dismiss someone's suggestion. 

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Can't have life support in the thread title and then say it had nothing to do with life support.

When somebody puts a title on a post that doesn't match the text, yes you can say such a thing.
 

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Not everyone is willing or able to mod their game. This has never been a valid excuse to not include a feature, or to dismiss someone's suggestion. 

Huh?  Go back and read what I wrote - not once did I suggest that anyone mod their game.  I pointed out that mods existed that implemented life support and suggested the OP examine them to understand what life support is and does.
 

3 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

One could certainly argue that morale is a part of crew support, indeed several of the LS mods implement some variation of it. 

Since the topic is life support, not crew support...  I'm not sure what your point is.  Changing the name won't change the underlying issue - this isn't a life support proposal.  Words mean things, and in a science based game it's very poor practice to change definitions away from the commonly accepted one.
 

14 hours ago, SlinkyMcman said:

Juggling <1t of snacks for efficiency sake isn't something people who are just learning the game can get behind because learning the game require failing to juggle multiple tons of fuel. 

If you want a life support function, then you're going to have to deal with life support logistics.  Not to mention, by the time they're running missions long enough to require tons of life support supplies they're no longer a beginner.  If you can launch and rendezvous all the parts of a space station, then you can certainly launch and rendezvous the moral equivalent of a Progress.  If you look at TAC-LS (or other life support mods) the weight of the supplies need for something like an orbital mission is trivial. 

[kerbiloid]

Isn't Kerbalism all about it