mcwaffles2003 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 (edited) Games like subnautica have this and astroneer has a seperate mode where you dont need to tether for O2. Is having a base game life support system asking for too much? Edit: I've just been playing a lot with the kerbalism mod (love it and the details it brings) and have played with TAC and USI LS mods for a long while before kerbalism. I feel like having a basic life support system in the base game will help with multiple mod compatibility as opposed to being stuck with a Venn diagram of compatibility between mods. Not being a modder myself I can't speak from experience, but I would assume this would make creating these types of mods much easier to create/maintain as well as there would be a base system for background resource usage Edited December 10, 2019 by mcwaffles2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Really depends on how it's implemented; if it's a dependancy that can't be removed/modified easily then it could seriously hamper modding in more complex Life Support. Or require hacking around it with more complex (Less-Performant) code; either way i'm interested to see what Star Theory do in this regard. We've had a basic Life Support system confirmed as stock since close to the initial announcement, but no implication on how or if it will scale to more difficult versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said: Really depends on how it's implemented; if it's a dependancy that can't be removed/modified easily then it could seriously hamper modding in more complex Life Support. Or require hacking around it with more complex (Less-Performant) code; either way i'm interested to see what Star Theory do in this regard. We've had a basic Life Support system confirmed as stock since close to the initial announcement, but no implication on how or if it will scale to more difficult versions. But earlier I implied having a mode where in there was no life support active at all (See creative mode in pic), wouldn't that imply that it can be removed? Also, "We've had a basic Life Support system confirmed as stock since close to the initial announcement" reference please as I have not heard about this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 18 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said: But earlier I implied having a mode where in there was no life support active at all (See creative mode in pic), wouldn't that imply that it can be removed? Also, "We've had a basic Life Support system confirmed as stock since close to the initial announcement" reference please as I have not heard about this i really wish i could understand why this forum hates AND/OR arguements or boolean logic in it's search function; damn thing froze on me several times. So i apologise for the delay here M8 Quoted from nikokespprfan 's post since he actually had the translations. English Transcript from Gamescom " Interviewer: Will there be such a thing as life support systems so you have to ensure oxygen supply, water supply and food supply for the Kerbals. Nate: I can say so much that the need to keep Kerbals alive is a feature we're going to introduce now. But I can not say more about that at this point, but I can say so much. In case you tried mods on life support systems; it will not be so detailed, but as I said I can not say too much because there are a few secrets. " As for the fact it can be disabled implying that it's not a dependancy; that's not neccessarly true as they could make it not affect the user but still have variables or other functions still tied to life support's modules enabled while doing so. Which would mean while you could make it meaningless gameplay wise; there's still plenty of it's code you can't touch. But i feel like Star Theory won't implement it anything like that; they're building from the ground up for moddablity which generally means your code is pretty modular and avoids things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, Incarnation of Chaos said: i really wish i could understand why this forum hates AND/OR arguements or boolean logic in it's search function; damn thing froze on me several times. So i apologise for the delay here M8 Absolutely no rush friend and thank you sincerely for the reference 3 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said: As for the fact it can be disabled implying that it's not a dependancy; that's not neccessarly true as they could make it not affect the user but still have variables or other functions still tied to life support's modules enabled while doing so. Which would mean while you could make it meaningless gameplay wise; there's still plenty of it's code you can't touch. But i feel like Star Theory won't implement it anything like that; they're building from the ground up for moddablity which generally means your code is pretty modular and avoids things like that. Like in running infinite O2/water/food where amounts aren't displayed in the UI, but instead under the hood, therefore allowing a "creative mode" but still requiring the resources for the game to work? If this is your concern I believe the Take two staff know about the more hardcore life support mods and wouldn't want to get into the modders way, especially since Nate has said that making modability more accessible is core to the architecture of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 Just now, mcwaffles2003 said: Absolutely no rush friend and thank you sincerely for the reference Like in running infinite O2/water/food where amounts aren't displayed in the UI, but instead under the hood, therefore allowing a "creative mode" but still requiring the resources for the game to work? If this is your concern I believe the Take two staff know about the more hardcore life support mods and wouldn't want to get into the modders way, especially since Nate has said that making modability more accessible is core to the architecture of the game. No problems; i'm glad to cite my sources when i have a vague idea where they are. Kinda, and agreed. But we won't know 100% until the game releases, so it's still gonna bug me until then xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said: No problems; i'm glad to cite my sources when i have a vague idea where they are. Kinda, and agreed. But we won't know 100% until the game releases, so it's still gonna bug me until then xD Well if anything, as stated earlier, I hope instead of reducing modability this instead leads to inherently increased compatibility between different mods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarnation of Chaos Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said: Well if anything, as stated earlier, I hope instead of reducing modability this instead leads to inherently increased compatibility between different mods That would be the ideal case. Though i feel like in some areas it's going to be a massive improvement; KSP2 being designed with other star systems in mind is a massive leap from the Kerbol-Centric Universe in KSP1 and i couldn't realistically see how it wouldn't do anything but improve both modding and performance. Since now even if you need to create planets before KSP2 fully loads you can call functions native to KSP2 rather than implmenting them on top; you also would have a built-in system for placing them rather than having to make that from scratch. The Physics LOD system has me exceptionally excited; because i love building massive rockets that even lag on my Ryzen 7 system with 16GB of RAM and a Vega 56. But also because it opens up a stock way to essentially "Ignore" calculating the interactions between an array of parts; which could be used in all manner of creative ways to do things it was never intended to (Pocket dimensions anyone?). So i do think KSP2 will completely blow KSP1 out of the water in terms of possibilities, and only keep expanding them as time goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 10 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said: Though i feel like in some areas it's going to be a massive improvement; KSP2 being designed with other star systems in mind is a massive leap from the Kerbol-Centric Universe in KSP1 and i couldn't realistically see how it wouldn't do anything but improve both modding and performance. Since now even if you need to create planets before KSP2 fully loads you can call functions native to KSP2 rather than implmenting them on top; you also would have a built-in system for placing them rather than having to make that from scratch. And who knows how big the universe can get , perhaps stock will be a pond to the modders ocean 11 minutes ago, Incarnation of Chaos said: Though i feel like in some areas it's going to be a massive improvement; KSP2 being designed with other star systems in mind is a massive leap from the Kerbol-Centric Universe in KSP1 and i couldn't realistically see how it wouldn't do anything but improve both modding and performance. Since now even if you need to create planets before KSP2 fully loads you can call functions native to KSP2 rather than implmenting them on top; you also would have a built-in system for placing them rather than having to make that from scratch. Biggest I've made with actual intention to use was 1500 parts and, 800 after booster separation. The lag and instability on these scales are the truest hurdles to the game and made it rather impossible to work with the ship I took a full day building. Nate says "empire state building" class rockets and that should be on mediocre hardware. Hoping game performance can really scale more linearly with computing performance as opposed to everyone hitting lag by ~300 parts. Segmenting down ships into sections to reduce the sheer amount of part-part interactions, as it seems may be a strategy, might really push this a good bit forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 If star theory codes in the API's for life support, the modders will love it. As for it being apart of the vanilla game, if you can turn it off, fine. If you can't, they better find a way to do the logistics for it that isn't bothersome. In Subnautica, I turned it off after a few hours, it was getting really annoying. I don't mind it so much with Astroneer, it only limits how far you can travel and you actually have time to refill your O2 before you die. (If you make it to a tether line or base in time.) The resources for tethers are usually readily available and your O2 refills quickly. So it's not so much of a burden to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 13 hours ago, shdwlrd said: If star theory codes in the API's for life support, the modders will love it. As for it being apart of the vanilla game, if you can turn it off, fine. If you can't, they better find a way to do the logistics for it that isn't bothersome. I'm hoping it could be turned off. As suggested in the pic of the original post, I would like the game to cater to newcomers and those looking for a relaxed game, but it would be nice to have a sort of "hardcore" option for those of us who want to have to solve those additional issues along with the aspects of space travel as a whole. I also assume (speaking with no modding experience) that modding will be easier if it is easier to tear the game down to its base components and separate them in an organised fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattinoz Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 If they use a good model like USI LS that is simple then the player is well advanced before life support concerns kick in and provide them a new level of not unexpected challenge. i found the lack the life support in vanilla immersion breaking once you had crew in space for weeks if not years at a time. Still they can have fun with it and make it very kerbal but see no reason to turn it off if parts are assumed to forfill a certain roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 4 hours ago, mattinoz said: If they use a good model like USI LS that is simple then the player is well advanced before life support concerns kick in and provide them a new level of not unexpected challenge. Hopefully it would be better balanced and documented. Life support isn't something to let the player figure out by trial and error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 I'm still not entirely convinced that there will be actual life support in the game - they could just have been talking a colony support mechanic that's life-support like. I'm a little ambivalent about whether they should have a life support system - both in that it's unlikely they'll get a detail level that everyone thinks is correct, and even more that the open sandbox without to much overhead is a good part of the draw of KSP. The latter could be dealt with using difficulty levels, of course. (As could the former - at the cost of a lot more work for the developers.) On the other hand, having a good system well integrated into the game would be better than trying to integrate one of a half-dozen systems into whatever set of mods you want to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 12 minutes ago, DStaal said: I'm still not entirely convinced that there will be actual life support in the game - they could just have been talking a colony support mechanic that's life-support like. I'm a little ambivalent about whether they should have a life support system - both in that it's unlikely they'll get a detail level that everyone thinks is correct, and even more that the open sandbox without to much overhead is a good part of the draw of KSP. The latter could be dealt with using difficulty levels, of course. (As could the former - at the cost of a lot more work for the developers.) On the other hand, having a good system well integrated into the game would be better than trying to integrate one of a half-dozen systems into whatever set of mods you want to use. Is it really so hard to make a feature with the ability of disabling it in game? I'm just hoping not all of the gameplay improvement in the game, performance and the like aside, is geared toward attracting a new audience, but also serves the more "intense" players in the community. Just for example I'm loving the new science mechanism in kerbalism where science takes time to complete vs click and its done as well as things like mechanical failures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said: Is it really so hard to make a feature with the ability of disabling it in game? Depends on the feature and how much it affects balance, as well as how it's programmed. I don't actually think *disabling* life support is likely to be hard if they programmed it with that in mind. Changing the detail level of it on the other hand requires balancing *each level of detail,* and possibly having extra parts for some of them, etc. That's the part that would have more work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattinoz Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 12 hours ago, shdwlrd said: Hopefully it would be better balanced and documented. Life support isn't something to let the player figure out by trial and error. I would have said the same of orbital mechanics before KSP1 but there I was floating in virtual space erroring all over the shop. Still, yes Life Support needs to be balanced and documented and this is equally true of so many parts of KSP1 and mods that make it in to the trailer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, mattinoz said: I would have said the same of orbital mechanics before KSP1 but there I was floating in virtual space erroring all over the shop. Been there too. Then I found the Scott Manley videos on YouTube. Anyway, when you run out of fuel, or crash good enough for you crew to survive, you can attempt a rescue mission at some point in the future. When you run out of LS, or worse, you forget to turn it on, you may not even be able to rescue your crew. 2 hours ago, mattinoz said: Still, yes Life Support needs to be balanced and documented and this is equally true of so many parts of KSP1 and mods that make it in to the trailer. Agreed, it's frustrating to tank a mission because the system isn't working the way it was described. It also annoying that you have to add many extra parts even though the functions would be built into the pods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattinoz Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 On 12/11/2019 at 6:27 PM, shdwlrd said: Been there too. Then I found the Scott Manley videos on YouTube. Anyway, when you run out of fuel, or crash good enough for you crew to survive, you can attempt a rescue mission at some point in the future. When you run out of LS, or worse, you forget to turn it on, you may not even be able to rescue your crew. Agreed, it's frustrating to tank a mission because the system isn't working the way it was described. It also annoying that you have to add many extra parts even though the functions would be built into the pods. How much of the function can be built into a given pod though? a mk1 can’t have much more than a day or so. Mk 1-3 what a week or 2.. station parts like science pod should cope with a few months without supplies or support. Those spinning Habs in the video should handle a year or 2. But if you want to push it there should be an overhead. A grand tour in a mk1 capsule shouldn’t be something that just works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shdwlrd Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 7 hours ago, mattinoz said: How much of the function can be built into a given pod though? a mk1 can’t have much more than a day or so. Mk 1-3 what a week or 2.. station parts like science pod should cope with a few months without supplies or support. Those spinning Habs in the video should handle a year or 2. But if you want to push it there should be an overhead. A grand tour in a mk1 capsule shouldn’t be something that just works. That's a good question. All pods should have some recycling capacity and storage space. That's the thing I liked with USI:LS, it added supplies to the pods. Not enough for an extended mission, but enough for short duration missions or emergencies. What I didn't like was it didn't add a base recycling capacity to the pods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 On 12/9/2019 at 1:32 PM, mcwaffles2003 said: Absolutely no rush friend and thank you sincerely for the reference Like in running infinite O2/water/food where amounts aren't displayed in the UI, but instead under the hood, therefore allowing a "creative mode" but still requiring the resources for the game to work? If this is your concern I believe the Take two staff know about the more hardcore life support mods and wouldn't want to get into the modders way, especially since Nate has said that making modability more accessible is core to the architecture of the game. Pretty sure that turning "require life support" off will simply hide the values and set kerbals resource use to zero. Life support involves everything from bases to kerbals on eva but setting use to zero solves any issues here. You might some minor issues like weight of build in life support resources in an capsule still being included but hidden and this could be removed or reduced if playing with life support on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcwaffles2003 Posted December 14, 2019 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 3 hours ago, magnemoe said: Pretty sure that turning "require life support" off will simply hide the values and set kerbals resource use to zero. Life support involves everything from bases to kerbals on eva but setting use to zero solves any issues here. You might some minor issues like weight of build in life support resources in an capsule still being included but hidden and this could be removed or reduced if playing with life support on. I assume not only could you turn use to 0 but also all resource values of significance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts