On Implementing Functioning Life Support Systems for Kerbals

[rodion_herrera]

Maybe there's already been a topic about this, and also, some will say perhaps there are mods for this, but if there was something I really wished for when v1.0 was released, was a functional life support system for Kerbals. Can anyone enlighten me why such a system can pose problems for KSP? And if adding such a system is a non-issue, why is it that I notice that users don't seem that interested in such an idea (my point being that if it was interesting enough there'd be many threads on the issue already).

[peadar1987]

It's more the fact that it has already been discussed to death, and pretty much everything to say about it has already been said.

[rodion_herrera]

It's more the fact that it has already been discussed to death, and pretty much everything to say about it has already been said.

Well the subject about female Kerbals also reached fever pitched and a climax at some point, and eventually died down as well. But now we have Valentina. So I wish to resurrect the topic and let people present the good stuff that will come if it's implemented, or the bad stuff that can potentially ruin gameplay if there ever was one.

[NWDogg]

I think the majority would like to have some sort of life support system in game, but the problem lies in how it is implemented. As you know, there are several mods that currently or have tried to implement such a system in an interesting way, but the nature of life support means that this system is going to be mostly passive. Each of these mods does things a little differently, but it ultimately boils down to 'do I have enough X resource on the ship?' rather than adding any meaningful gameplay decisions.

Now, I suppose one could ramp up the interactivity of life support mods and implement a system that would need to be monitored and checked and adjusted continuously. That may fix the passive problem, but then you run into the very likely situation that it becomes micro-management, grindy, or just plain annoying to deal with. So no matter which type of system you make, passive or interactive, there are gameplay problems that come with them, and not a lot of benefit to be gained. As well, there are varying opinions on how Kerbals should respond...should they die? or simply become inactive for a while? Or maybe even some other gameplay detriment/effect. There are many possibilities, so no 1 system can effectively cover what each player expects.

The best bet with this is simply to allow the player to choose which type of life support system (or not) they want to use. There are several mods that do the job wonderfully, but differently enough that they are distinct. If Squad implemented such a system into stock, it would maybe satisfy 1/4th of the players, while the rest are looking for something completely different anyway. I'm not saying they couldn't do it...they certainly could...but their time is probably better spent implementing other features and fixes to the rest of the game, while leaving relatively minor stuff like this to the modders.

[rodion_herrera]

As well, there are varying opinions on how Kerbals should respond...should they die? or simply become inactive for a while? Or maybe even some other gameplay detriment/effect. There are many possibilities, so no 1 system can effectively cover what each player expects.

What players expect? In real life, there is only one thing that happens when you don't get life support--you die. Why bother with other possibilities? Because Kerbals are not human? But still, Kerbals do die, but the current rule says they only die because of massive impacts. I think the ruleset on Kerbal death should be expanded.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

"There is a mod for it" is not satisfying answer to the topic, if a mechanic should be implemented to the stock game.

This aside, i would love to see a softcore version of TAC-Lifesupport, so that it is not killing off your kerbals if they dont have food anymore.

Water can be produced via Fuelcells (thats what Apollo did).

Electricity can be used to purify Air.

and Food well... that could be the reason to resupply once in a while.

All in all, i would love to see some sort of lifesupport-mechanic in the game.

Yes we had topics like that before.

Female Kerbals, better atmospheres, Kerbal autopilots just to call a few.

All discussed wildly and it almost looked like they will never be implemented.

Edited May 2, 2015 by MalfunctionM1Ke

[SkyRender]

Life support is one of those sticky wickets for KSP. A number of other features really do need to be present for that to work, most notably some sort of overview system that lets you track at a glance the current profile of each and every mission. We have a framework for that with the tracking station, but it would need considerable expanding for life support to work. We'd need at-a-glance knowledge of how long each ship is going to last with current life support supplies, if nothing else. The VAB/SPH scene would also need a new widget to tell us how long the crew can be expected to survive on what they have. And of course, you'd see a lot of players who don't use life support complaining that their Kerbals are dying on their long missions because they didn't give them enough LS. Getting the Engineer's Report to correctly assess your life support needs would be quite a trick indeed, given that the editor has no way of knowing where you're planning to send that thing (or when, for that matter).

[Robotengineer]

I think a possible solution to the Kerbal death in space issue would be to have Kerbals be to LS as probe cores are to ElectricCharge. Kerbals don't die when they run out of LS, they simply cease to function, and could be brought back to life with a resupply mission. You could also have hibernation type missions where after launching you lock the LS resources and have a probe core guide the mission to a destination.

[rodion_herrera]

I have a feeling this thing is again going the fun vs. realism route, and I'm sorry but I'm really biased towards realism. I mean, I believe people will appreciate WHY space missions are difficult (and more expensive) for living beings (as compared to just sending probes) better, if such a system is in place in KSP. I mean when I first found out that KSP did not have one back in 2013, I said to myself, so there's practically no difference in sending Kerbals to do a mission, and doing the same mission with a probe, so why bother with Kerbals? Sure, sure, the addition of the science aspect, and now the resource collection aspect makes their presence on a surface more meaningful now that just automate the entire process with robotic explorers. But if Squad DID eventually allow for science and resource collection, I think the next great revolution is the implementation of a life support system, again, to GIVE MEANING as to why we use Kerbals for our missions. Remember the PC Gamer review? I liked the line which says "WE DID THAT." but we did it with great effort and difficulty, remembering Kennedy's words, "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Manned missions are hard, and KSP should evolve just to show how hard it can be.

Or just flip the LSS off with a toggle. That alone can make both sides of the debate happy.

KSP has so much potential to convince the general public that space exploration is the future of humankind, thus the suggestions I often make are more or less pushing towards this encouragement.

Edited May 2, 2015 by rodion_herrera

[Grumman]

Life support should not be essential, but it would be cool to have as an optional thing.

For one simple example, tourists would pay more for their joyrides if they never run out of snacks. You'd have to account for life support used in the interim each time you took control of a spacecraft, but that would be easy to accomplish - just give each manned ship a variable stating what was the last time it went from a full simulation to being on rails, and then subtract N rations per kerbal per hour since that time.

You could also make it a new mission type, to deliver supplies to one of your space stations.

[Alshain]

Guys, if they are going to implement life support they might as well implement N-body physics. The simple truth is a lot of people do not want to have to maintain constant upkeep on everything they put in persistance. I like the idea of a new challenge personally but I believe it should stay a mod.

[georgTF]

I have played TAC previously and loved it. It did eventually boil down to having to add the same bunch of parts to each manned craft without adding to gameplay. If you forgot a part, Kerbals died so you made sure not to forget. Net result was generally a slightly higher part count for craft and very little else. I do like TAC still, but i can understand why Squad would skip integrating a feature with trivial gameplay benefits. It's one of those ideas that doesn't seem like it can miss in theory, but is not so impressive in practise.

[NWDogg]

What players expect? In real life, there is only one thing that happens when you don't get life support--you die. Why bother with other possibilities? Because Kerbals are not human? But still, Kerbals do die, but the current rule says they only die because of massive impacts. I think the ruleset on Kerbal death should be expanded.

I agree with that. I don't see much of a point in dumbing down anything in this game, in fact I'd much rather KSP be like Orbiter with rocket-building than the game it is now, but most other players aren't like that. Even in this thread, there are differing opinions on how Kerbals should respond to lack of life support. Maybe a sliding scale from 'absolute death' to 'just taking a break' would solve that problem, but I can still see plenty others.

[rodion_herrera]

..Fuelcells...

Interestingly enough, what triggered me to resurrect this discussion is precisely that--I was doing my heat shield tests and was musing on what to put inside the storage bay, when I was staring at fuel cells, which are thankfully and finally now in v1.0...and suddenly it brought me back to Apollo and how they used that to get water that is "not especially pleasing to drink, but potable"...and how during Apollo 13, they did have a water crisis because of the shutting down of the fuel cells in the CSM...

...see? That's how my mind works, it always goes back to the real space programs and makes me wonder when it will happen in KSP.

[Wayfare]

I believe career mode desperately needs a way for the devs to pace player progression - especially during the early game - and life support could be just the ticket. If so, I'd like to see it implemented simply and elegantly. I don't want to worry about how many times Jeb needs to jettison a #2 and whether or not it could be recycled into oxidizer. Just give me a simple LifeSupport (or Snacks) resource and give me more hours of Kerbal lifetime out of it as I move up the tech tree. Let me create it through ISRU once I'm far enough along and presto

In Science and Sandbox mode... Maybe not so much needed, no.

[rodion_herrera]

In Science and Sandbox mode... Maybe not so much needed, no.

Which is why in sandbox mode, you have access to all the parts. Same thing.

[Grumman]

Maybe a sliding scale from 'absolute death' to 'just taking a break' would solve that problem, but I can still see plenty others.

The problem with life support is that if you need it, rescue is impossible. There is no such thing as a failed but survivable mission that requires a follow-up mission if the survivor goes into hibernation with no way to snap them out of it. Anything that is turned off by a lack of life support needs to be something you can do without - like extra tourism money or the extra skills a Kerbal gains as they level up - or else you're making manned spaceflight a worse version of probes, but without the expendability.

I believe career mode desperately needs a way for the devs to pace player progression...

The last thing career mode needs is another hindrance to progression.

[Wayfare]

Which is why in sandbox mode, you have access to all the parts. Same thing.

True. What I'm trying to say is that life support would, in my opinion, only really be an interesting gameplay mechanic in career mode. Maybe in science mode too, now that I think about it some more. But not in sandbox mode really, there it would just add some parts and then be a non-issue.

Career mode is so chock full of interfacing mechanics (currencies, strategies, building upgrades, the tech tree, crew experience) that it's a hot mess to balance. Adding life support as a means for devs to say "OK, at this stage in the game, you can send Kerbals to the Mun and no further" would finally allow them to implement a real progression system that can't be broken five minutes after it's thrown to the monkeys

[rodion_herrera]

The problem with life support is that if you need it, rescue is impossible. There is no such thing as a failed but survivable mission that requires a follow-up mission if the survivor goes into hibernation with no way to snap them out of it. Anything that is turned off by a lack of life support needs to be something you can do without - like extra tourism money or the extra skills a Kerbal gains as they level up - or else you're making manned spaceflight a worse version of probes, but without the expendability.

The last thing career mode needs is another hindrance to progression.

Somehow I have a hard time digesting this. Can you illustrate a case scenario via an example?

[Grumman]

Somehow I have a hard time digesting this. Can you illustrate a case scenario via an example?

Imagine you have a rocket that runs out of delta-V and gets stuck in orbit. At the moment, you can rescue the pilot by sending another rocket any time in the future to match velocities and have the pilot spacewalk across. But you can only do this because the pilot can still function days or years in the future. If you sent a rescue mission up and the pilot had gone into hibernation, you have no way of getting him to the ship with life support to get him out of hibernation.

This is basically the situation probes are in right now if they run out of electricity and aren't just waiting for their solar panels to drift into the light, but the difference is that a lost probe is merely an inconvenience that adds to the character of your game state, while a comatose Kerbal who cannot be rescued is more annoying, since we naturally want our Kerbals to return home safely more than some computer chip.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Grumman

[georgTF]

Well in the above example, it all depends how much time the Kerbal has left before life support runs out. With TAC way back when, i've had most manned craft equpped to survive 7-20 days per Kerbal if they were intended for Kerbin and it's moons, much more if they were interplanetary.

I did have to rescue 4 Kerbals from the Mun within that time limit. Initially just one, but each recue attempt failed and needed rescuing... Eventually they returned safe and sound to a MKO station and then home.

[rodion_herrera]

I did have to rescue 4 Kerbals from the Mun within that time limit. Initially just one, but each recue attempt failed and needed rescuing... Eventually they returned safe and sound to a MKO station and then home.

And I bet that felt very rewarding huh?

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

Guys, if they are going to implement life support they might as well implement N-body physics. The simple truth is a lot of people do not want to have to maintain constant upkeep on everything they put in persistance. I like the idea of a new challenge personally but I believe it should stay a mod.

Or maybe it should be an option in the Difficulty-Menu.

[adinfinitum]

The only way I really see life support working is making it so that if the command module/hitchhiker container/whatever runs out of power, the kerbals have x amount of time before they don't survive. Give every pod a certain amount of power drain, perhaps based on how many kerbals are actually inside, and then you don't have to worry about having enough of a certain amount of food or oxygen for a long trip. It also brings it in line with probe cores, where if electricity runs out, you can't even extend your panels or start the engine again.

[tater]

The problem with life support is that if you need it, rescue is impossible. There is no such thing as a failed but survivable mission that requires a follow-up mission if the survivor goes into hibernation with no way to snap them out of it. Anything that is turned off by a lack of life support needs to be something you can do without - like extra tourism money or the extra skills a Kerbal gains as they level up - or else you're making manned spaceflight a worse version of probes, but without the expendability.

Roverdude's new LS mod is great for stock. The current KSP gameplay is hardest at the very start of career, LS can possibly make later gameplay slightly more challenging.

The last thing career mode needs is another hindrance to progression.

Hinderence is exactly what career needs, you can easily have everything unlocked and upgraded long before the first Duna transfer window.