Native Life Support.

[phillibetrus]

It would be nice to see life support requirements in KSP2. I am surprised they were never added to the first game, and I know that there are always mods for that but if life support requirements are native then we won't have to juggle compatibility issues over this. Make it optional for difficulty purposes and keep it simple but please add as this is an intrinsic issue to overcome in real space travel.

[Ahres]

Welcome to the KSP forums @phillibetrus! I too am hoping for life support stuff, at least in a minimal form, but I'm not getting my hopes up. There's been a lot of discussion about life support already so feel free to dig around on the forums to see all of our theories and discussions. 

You should also know that Mashable just came out with an article on KSP2 recently and it had this quote from Nate Simpson: "Simpson noted that, while you can colonise other planets, you won't have to worry about feeding your Kerbals and keeping them alive once you get there. Life support isn't going to be a concern." 

Kind of an intriguing line. It says you don't have to worry about life support "once you get there". But it also adds some confusion because we've seen screenshots of colonies that had greenhouse modules attached. 

[EchoEkhi]

1 hour ago, Ahres said:

Kind of an intriguing line. It says you don't have to worry about life support "once you get there". But it also adds some confusion because we've seen screenshots of colonies that had greenhouse modules attached. 

I think it's referring to micromanagement concerns, like this statement on PC Gamer from a year ago:

Quote

If you leave one in a dangerous state, without enough power or food, it’ll simply underperform.

My guess is that it's an optional thing, but they are still necessary for "boom events", if they're still going to be a thing.

[Pthigrivi]

I have to say I really hope there's life support in SOME form, whatever that may be. I think we don't know much about what will happen at the end of the day. Im sure Intercept has strong ideas at this point, whether it's been baked in yet or not. They also know a lot more about the larger scope and understand how that might fit in. The first concern that you don't want to come back after a long time-warp and find all your kerbals dead is easy to fix. You just change the consequences from death to hungry grumpy kerbals that don't perform as well. The bigger question is whether LS is a resource that depletes over time or whether it's a more abstract, static, closed-cycle resource. From my personal experience depleting LS like you see in USI really isn't such a big deal to worry about. It's pretty simple to put together some greenhouses and recyclers to keep them fed and happy for years at a time without worrying about resupply. Managing 8 different fuel types and scanning and prospecting is much more complicated. But there may be other reasons like multiplayer why tick-down LS is a fundamental problem. 

If I were to guess it sounds like they're eying something more stable and reliable. My real hope is that it's something, some way of abstracting the challenge and chemistry of living off the land on other planets. I'd love if greenhouses and habitation modules to had a real in-game function and you needed to gather resources to expand. If it falls behind maybe the colony cant grow or lags in ISRU collection or science processing or whatever, but there is still a tangible advantage to providing for kerbals needs and keeping them happy. I think its not just important for the sense of realism, but for the players emotional involvement with the process of colonization and with Kerbals' wellbeing. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[mattinoz]

On 7/14/2021 at 5:22 AM, Pthigrivi said:

I have to say I really hope there's life support in SOME form, whatever that may be. I think we don't know much about what will happen at the end of the day. Im sure Intercept has strong ideas at this point, whether it's been baked in yet or not. They also know a lot more about the larger scope and understand how that might fit in. The first concern that you don't want to come back after a long time-warp and find all your kerbals dead is easy to fix. You just change the consequences from death to hungry grumpy kerbals that don't perform as well. The bigger question is whether LS is a resource that depletes over time or whether it's a more abstract, static, closed-cycle resource. From my personal experience depleting LS like you see in USI really isn't such a big deal to worry about. It's pretty simple to put together some greenhouses and recyclers to keep them fed and happy for years at a time without worrying about resupply. Managing 8 different fuel types and scanning and prospecting is much more complicated. But there may be other reasons like multiplayer why tick-down LS is a fundamental problem. 

If I were to guess it sounds like they're eying something more stable and reliable. My real hope is that it's something, some way of abstracting the challenge and chemistry of living off the land on other planets. I'd love if greenhouses and habitation modules to had a real in-game function and you needed to gather resources to expand. If it falls behind maybe the colony cant grow or lags in ISRU collection or science processing or whatever, but there is still a tangible advantage to providing for kerbals needs and keeping them happy. I think its not just important for the sense of realism, but for the players emotional involvement with the process of colonization and with Kerbals' wellbeing. 

With USI-LS  craft that can get a lot of Kerbals to a planet to start a colony is pretty much* able to be self sustaining on the ground. 

This assumes you basically have no return craft if they get there, then they'll survive. Mostly....

Seems to match the comment that once you get there and set up camp then it's not a concern. Although I'd think to grow a colony we need to make a green house for each x number of habitation module. 

[Pthigrivi]

On 7/21/2021 at 7:58 PM, mattinoz said:

With USI-LS  craft that can get a lot of Kerbals to a planet to start a colony is pretty much* able to be self sustaining on the ground. 

This assumes you basically have no return craft if they get there, then they'll survive. Mostly....

Seems to match the comment that once you get there and set up camp then it's not a concern. Although I'd think to grow a colony we need to make a green house for each x number of habitation module. 

Agreed. And keep in mind while I love the framework USI-LS is long in the tooth and there are a lot of balance issues which I usually customize with other modded parts and by monkeying around in the cfg files. Roverdude seems understandably busy these days

Edited July 23, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[mattinoz]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Agreed. And keep in mind while I love the framework USI-LS is long in the tooth and there are a lot of balance issues which I usually customize with other modded parts and by monkeying around in the cfg files. Roverdude seems understandably busy these days

Yes but what he’s busy on is KSP2 so whoever is doing game design in the team would know he’s there to talk to about issues and balance. 

[Pthigrivi]

44 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Yes but what he’s busy on is KSP2 so whoever is doing game design in the team would know he’s there to talk to about issues and balance. 

That's what I was hinting at.  USI is probably a step or two more involved than they have in mind for KSP2 and could use some refinement, but it's an interesting case study in resource dynamics. 

Edited July 23, 2021 by Pthigrivi

[enewmen]

Please also consider very basic forms of life support such as oxygen and heat.  What if the electricity runs out when kerbals are between planets?  With no electricity there is no air scrubbing, no air circulation, and no way to maintain a livable temperature range.  Anyway, I see three levels of life support. 

No electricity means death within minutes.  No supplies give kerbals reduced performance within days.  Adequate habitation loss in deep space means kerbals becoming a tourist like in USI or going bonkers within months.

Life support doesn't need to be complex. But I highly doubt the most hardy kerbal can survive a trip to Jool locked inside a command pod like in the stock KSP 1.

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, enewmen said:

Please also consider very basic forms of life support such as oxygen and heat.  What if the electricity runs out when kerbals are between planets?  With no electricity there is no air scrubbing, no air circulation, and no way to maintain a livable temperature range.  Anyway, I see three levels of life support. 

No electricity means death within minutes.  No supplies give kerbals reduced performance within days.  Adequate habitation loss in deep space means kerbals becoming a tourist like in USI or going bonkers within months.

Life support doesn't need to be complex. But I highly doubt the most hardy kerbal can survive a trip to Jool locked inside a command pod like in the stock KSP 1.

Nope, not going to happen. Nate did say in an interview that they don't want players to worry about dead Kerbals if you ignore a colony or on a multi year interstellar journey.

[kerbiloid]

46 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

they don't want players to worry about dead Kerbals

Who worries?..

If I got a dollar for every dead Kerbal.

[shdwlrd]

50 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Who worries?..

If I got a dollar for every dead Kerbal.

Lol... most long term players can say that.

I think the sediment is not failing a mission because the Kerbals died or having a colony fail because you were ignoring it to do something else.