How would you want to see life support handled?

[Tassyr]

[DISCLAIMER: This is not suggesting life support, I'm genuinely curious how people -want- it to be handled.]

So I've been checking some of the life support mods, but it seems like the only options I can find are the 'amazingly complex' or the 'amazingly simple.' Therefore, I'm curious- what do you want?

a) Just Oxygen levels

Oxygen and CO2 levels

c) Oxygen, CO2, Food, Water, waste

d) Oxygen, CO2, Food, Water, waste, heat, et cetera?

[Rosarium]

[DISCLAIMER: This is not suggesting life support, I'm genuinely curious how people -want- it to be handled.]

So I've been checking some of the life support mods, but it seems like the only options I can find are the 'amazingly complex' or the 'amazingly simple.' Therefore, I'm curious- what do you want?

a) Just Oxygen levels

Oxygen and CO2 levels

c) Oxygen, CO2, Food, Water, waste

d) Oxygen, CO2, Food, Water, waste, heat, et cetera?

there's no need to have it complicated, just oxigen will be great without adding frustration. So amazing simple

[Atoning Unifex]

None of the above! Well similar to C i guess.

I don't see the point of having oxygen and CO2 because as one goes up the other goes down. It would just be showing the same thing in two different ways, which just seems needless. So I'd suggest just having CO2.

I'd suggest 2 types of scrubber, a basic one that uses up some type of resource that needs resupplying, and an advanced regenerative one that requires no resupply.

I think in terms of food and water, yes to both, plus waste (including both solid and liquid) and possibly 'fertilizer' (i'll explain in a sec). There could be two tiers of recycler, a basic one, which simply reclaims water from waste and dumps the rest, and an advanced one which is able to reclaim water and also turn the remaining solid waste into a fertilizer that can be used, along with water, in a special (large station component) hydroponics lab to produce food, allowing for a sustainable environment that needs little or no resupply.

I think this gives a reasonable amount of life support without having to balance vast numbers of resources.

[regex]

After playing with TAC LS and Ioncross for a version or two, I'd have to say I'd just prefer a single, simple "Life Support" resource. No waste, no other resources, nothing more to really worry about other than that single resource. No scrubbers, recyclers, or any other junk, just "Life Support". I think, for the stock game, that should be enough. Run out of Life Support and your Kerbals die, or they can't go on EVA and you can't control the ship, or something.

I don't think stock KSP needs some overly-complicated resource management simulation, but a simple, robust abstraction helps illustrate the realities of spaceflight. Although I suppose for the "base builders" there should be a means of generating Life Support from appropriate in situ resources, even if I completely disagree with it.

[TimMartland]

, as a single 'Life support' resource is just a bit too meta. As much as I would love having Oxygen, CO2, Food, water, waste, wastewater, and heat, I doubt such a system will go in due to its complexity and prohibitive difficulty to new players.

[Atoning Unifex]

I'd be happy with something simple, as suggested, but I like the idea of having more parts with special functions, particularly for constructing space stations that are more than just hitch-hiker modules - like a waste recycler and a hydroponics lab for example

[Justin Kerbice]

IMHO, I hope such feature will be fully optional if added, but for people who want it, you forgot temperature (included in the 'etc' maybe ) !

Kind of: energy => air-conditioner. No energy => kerbals are frozen in the dark, toasted in the light (in a spaceship).

[frizzank]

I think heat and electricity are relatively interchangeable and electricity is already implemented in the stock game.

Since O2 is a thing already in KSP I would like to see CO2, water, food, waste water, and solid waste added. This way you have 3 life giving resources in solid, liquid and gas states. As well as their waste counter parts.

Kerbals would convert.

O2 > CO2

Water > Waste Water

Food > Solid Waste

You would need to store the waste and if any of the 3 waste products were to fill up the Kerbals would die, forcing you to dump your waste or convert it back to a usable resource.

This is a really simplified model and allows for all sorts of fun resource management without getting too complex or adding too many new plugin features.

Plants and gardens could be utilized as a converter for most of the needs of Kerbals with sunlight being a catalyst.

Example- CO2+Water+Solid Waste+Sunlight= Food and O2

Machines could scrub the waste at a cost of efficacy and some waste byproducts.

Example- CO2+Electricity = O2 and Solid Waste

and - Waste Water + Electricity = Water and Solid Waste

Liquid fuel and O2 could be made from Water and electricity.

Example- Water + Electricity = Liquid Fuel and O2

You could use resources to generate electricity as well by burning.

O2 + Solid Waste = Electricity and CO2

Edited February 28, 2014 by frizzank

[Dwight_js]

I would like to see food, water, and oxygen, and their associated waste products. I also would like to have the ability to set the rate of resource consumption. So if I haven't packed enough, or a mission takes longer than expected, I can have the Kerbals go into survival mode where they consume less, but are also way less productive, so you end up with a trade-off choice in emergency situations. If you want the Kerbals to return alive you'll have to give up on a lot of the science experimentation.

[Tery215]

Just O2 and CO2.

[Deathsoul097]

Air and Food. Each pod or livable part would have at least a days worth of both for the amout of kerbals it supports, excluding the hitchhiker, which should be able support 4 kerbals for a week. I like TAC, and have been using it in my most recent career, but it just seems very complex for what it does, and all of the resources are consumed and produced at the same rate, so there isnt much point to having all of them, other than pure realism. Although I kind of like that I have to send up an ATV evry so often to bring up food and remove the waste products, I don't think that realism in this way is something for stock, though we may want waste versions of both food and air. To me, stock should be a more simplistic version of this kind of thing. Realism can be left to the community of amazing modders.

[boomerdog2000]

O2, food (maybe)

I'm a big fan of sustainability in this game, so you don't have to send up mission after mission of supplies. Maybe not sustainable at first but with more research I would really like for that in the endgame. Advanced air scrubbers, and a greenhouse comes to mind.

[coolitic]

How about no?

Isn't this on already suggested list?

[Tassyr]

How about no?

Isn't this on already suggested list?

Indeed it is! But I'm not asking if people want it. I'm asking people to describe how they'd want it done if it WERE implemented. Different thing.

[CaptainGiblets]

I would want A, because while KSP is a simulation type game, many people just like to make crazy ideas and have non-sense mods etc. For example Robbaz, super funny, and does so with all of the above.

[Paul Kingtiger]

At minimum I'd like to see a one resource, just something so you have to think about how long your mission will last. A single, life support resource would do that. I'd also have life support a selectable option so people can choose. I'd like to see this included in the stock game.

At maximum I'd like to see a set of resources set by squad or my modder consensus so that mods could better work together. Something like, Oxygen will be the name (rather than O2) and the unit will be litres. That way the life support mod will be more easily compatible with the fuel cell mod, the resource mining mod and so on. For that you can have all the different resources because you'd have the option to turn one into the other. But I think that's something best left for mods and not included in the stock game.

[helaeon]

I'd like it to be handled in such a way that it causes us to make interesting things and solve interesting problems rather than it feel like a chore.

Yes that's vague, but Kerbal is fun because we get to solve problems by making awesome things. Putting a hurdle in the way to just put one there with a single thing that overcomes it isn't fun. If you think of all the different ways we can build landers, rockets, interplanetary ships, etc. Each layer of complexity that is added, a new problem to be solved should be similar. This sounds like the sort of thing that should probably be introduced with resources so we have lots of options to make "Life Support" in a variety of different ways.

[OTehNoes]

After playing with TAC LS and Ioncross for a version or two, I'd have to say I'd just prefer a single, simple "Life Support" resource. No waste, no other resources, nothing more to really worry about other than that single resource. No scrubbers, recyclers, or any other junk, just "Life Support". I think, for the stock game, that should be enough. Run out of Life Support and your Kerbals die, or they can't go on EVA and you can't control the ship, or something.

I don't think stock KSP needs some overly-complicated resource management simulation, but a simple, robust abstraction helps illustrate the realities of spaceflight. Although I suppose for the "base builders" there should be a means of generating Life Support from appropriate in situ resources, even if I completely disagree with it.

Exactly this. I'd rather just see "Life Support" as a resource, and leave anything more complex to the modding community. As I certainly don't really want to be messing around with all the different sections. If it has to be implemented, I'd like to keep it as simple as possible.

[Red Iron Crown]

After playing with TAC LS and Ioncross for a version or two, I'd have to say I'd just prefer a single, simple "Life Support" resource. No waste, no other resources, nothing more to really worry about other than that single resource. No scrubbers, recyclers, or any other junk, just "Life Support". I think, for the stock game, that should be enough. Run out of Life Support and your Kerbals die, or they can't go on EVA and you can't control the ship, or something.

I don't think stock KSP needs some overly-complicated resource management simulation, but a simple, robust abstraction helps illustrate the realities of spaceflight. Although I suppose for the "base builders" there should be a means of generating Life Support from appropriate in situ resources, even if I completely disagree with it.

I like this idea. I would add that Kerbals consume a certain amount of electricity, too, to reflect life support machinery, etc. Maybe some high mass parts that convert electricity into the life support resource as well, to represent recycling/reclamation facilities suitable for space stations or long mission duration spacecraft.

[Rusty6899]

The thing is, if I'm flying a mission to Jool, I don't really want to have to stop every few days to manage resources. I think a life support resource would be enough, with researchable parts to improve storage of it and the rate at which it depletes.

[regex]

I like this idea. I would add that Kerbals consume a certain amount of electricity, too, to reflect life support machinery, etc.

I have mixed feelings on this because it forces you to pick a certain path through science nodes in career mode (which also incidentally leads to probes) and I think that is a bad thing for new players. It is also severely limiting in early career play and I am entirely against that sort of limit. Seriously, play the early career with TAC LS and see how it goes. Regardless of whether you like it, try to imagine that for a new player.

Maybe some high mass parts that convert electricity into the life support resource as well, to represent recycling/reclamation facilities suitable for space stations or long mission duration spacecraft.

I am against this for different reasons, but the "base builders" will have it no other way. If such a part is sufficiently greedy about electricity and could never achieve 100% efficiency or relied on expected in situ resources (ice on Eeloo and Duna in the right places, oxygen on Laythe, possible ice on Moho in polar craters, etc...) I think it would work out better.

[Red Iron Crown]

I have mixed feelings on this because it forces you to pick a certain path through science nodes in career mode (which also incidentally leads to probes) and I think that is a bad thing for new players. It is also severely limiting in early career play and I am entirely against that sort of limit. Seriously, play the early career with TAC LS and see how it goes. Regardless of whether you like it, try to imagine that for a new player.

I hadn't thought of that, and honestly I don't play career mode enough to really be all that familiar with the tech tree. It seems to me that kerbals requiring electricity would drive a player to batteries and solar panels, which they would need for missions of any serious duration anyway. Am I wrong about that?

I am against this for different reasons, but the "base builders" will have it no other way. If such a part is sufficiently greedy about electricity and could never achieve 100% efficiency or relied on expected in situ resources (ice on Eeloo and Duna in the right places, oxygen on Laythe, possible ice on Moho in polar craters, etc...) I think it would work out better.

I agree that such a part would have to balanced carefully. For example, if a recycler can add life support at 50% of the rate a kerbal consumes it, what's to stop someone from putting two of them in for every kerbal and having a perfect closed loop? Its production rate would have to be tied to the number of Kerbals contributing to it, I think. Either that or add a "waste" resource that can be recycled or discarded, but then we're adding complexity again.

[regex]

I hadn't thought of that, and honestly I don't play career mode enough to really be all that familiar with the tech tree. It seems to me that kerbals requiring electricity would drive a player to batteries and solar panels, which they would need for missions of any serious duration anyway. Am I wrong about that?

As I see it, you are correct. Now imagine a new player having to not only deal with life support but with electricity being consumed by their Kerbals on a Mun flyby. Depending on the electrical consumption rate this becomes a big issue and drives a new player, who may just be exploring the tech nodes (and the game!), to get solar panels and batteries and nothing else until they have those. Adding three days of "Life Support" to a capsule is a completely new balance point, but adding electrical consumption for Kerbals along with all your other gear and transmitters and such is just compounding other balance points. Furthermore, after a certain point electricity is so easy to generate it is almost a secondary concern, so why bother having Kerbals use it at all? The point being, a new "Life Support" resource would be pretty easy to balance by itself but adding electricity to the mix will cause balance issues all over the place and will eventually not matter in the slightest (this is also why I have an issue with 100% Life Support recyclers and don't play for them).

[Red Iron Crown]

Those are good points, it is probably better to have the energy required to support the kerbals be part of the abstracted life support resource.

[Nathair]

Now imagine a new player having to not only deal with life support but with...

I don't think that new players is an appropriate way to gauge such matters. If something worthwhile seems too complicated for new players then don't simplify it, improve documentation and tutorials. Soon enough they won't be such new players and will appreciate the richer game experience. I would argue that in a sandbox game like this it's the endgame that merits the lion's share of the focus.

I'll vote D.