On Implementing Functioning Life Support Systems for Kerbals

[FlowerChild]

In order for LS to make sense in stock, they'd really have to ditch this whole "It's called KERBAL space program" non-argument for not starting off with unmanned missions. Somehow, I suspect they're not going to let go of that, and as a result, wind up in a design catch-22 where keeping Kerbals alive in space needs to be less challenging than keeping an automated system going, which is entirely counter-intuitive (and makes for less interesting gameplay to boot IMO).

They'd also have to implement proper background processing for resource consumption on unfocused vessels, which they seem to have some strange aversion to as well.

Edited May 2, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Wayfare]

In order for LS to make sense in stock, they'd really have to ditch this whole "It's called KERBAL space program" non-argument for not starting off with unmanned missions. Somehow, I suspect they're not going to let go of that, and as a result, wind up in a design catch-22 where keeping Kerbals alive in space needs to be less challenging than keeping an automated system going, which is entirely counter-intuitive (and makes for less interesting gameplay to boot IMO).

They'd also have to implement proper background processing for resource consumption on unfocused vessels, which they seem to have some strange aversion to as well.

I reckon they haven't bothered too much with the latter because of the former.

Of course the former is the juicier question I actually do like the idea of "screw how humans do it, these are Kerbals". And I think that's a principle that can be designed around pretty well. In its most basic sense, imagine a progression where Kerbals are little green people who really really want to go into space. They do so, but they run into a barrier. There are no snacks in space (insert life support here). They then develop probes to go out ahead and look for good places to go and how to get there. Probes do the scouting and preliminary research, then Kerbals follow to do cool space exploration stuff. Lots of explosions in between. That might make for a pretty natural arch where probes pave the way for Kerbal exploration of the solar system.

[FlowerChild]

Of course the former is the juicier question I actually do like the idea of "screw how humans do it, these are Kerbals".

I'm fine with that as well in all cases where I think it actually contributes to gameplay. In this case though, I really don't (and never have). What people tend not to get about the whole "Better Than Starting Manned" thing at first glance is that it really has nothing to do with realism (despite what Manley may have said in his vid ).

What it's more about is gameplay progression. Humans use automated systems in space because they're much more suited to that environment than we are. When you make the inverse true, you're left without a reason for probes to exist in the first place. This cuts down on mission diversity. It cuts down on the sense of satisfaction when you do manage to get a Kerbal somewhere, as you didn't have to cautiously explore it with an automated system first. It leaves probes as a dangling loose end in the game where there's next to no valid reason to send them anywhere, or for them to really exist as parts.

So to me, using the *name* of a game (which could just as easily be "Bob" and it would still be the same game/rose) as some kind of justification for sacrificing all that gameplay depth and diversity is rather laughable, and frankly leaves me face-palming whenever I see it used as a reason for anything

[Wjolcz]

I would like an idea of having some sort of "growing food" modules. Each module can support X Kerbals for the infinite amount of time. You get more crew on board = the food starts to drop. The modules could be somehow upgraded to support more kerbals per 1 module.

So it would work something like this: You get an early food-producing module (like a greenhouse or sth) that supports, lets say 3 kerbs. Somewhere along the tech tree you get a better version of it that supports more (5?) per one module and so on, and so on.

Maybe not very realistic but also not as hardcore. Is this solution elegant enough or could be enhanced?

E: Oh, and on topic of kerbals starvation deaths: I don't like the idea of them dying. Where would all the corpses go when new crew arrives? Maybe something like "Interstellar" cryo tubes instead of death? They just go to sleep, you loose reputation and the control over the ship. It could also work as crew shifts like in "Pandorum". Aaaand I went from semi-realistic to full sci-fi solution :L

Edited May 2, 2015 by Veeltch

[klgraham1013]

I honestly doubt it will happen, but I think it should. Life support is one of the main struggles space programs face. To have it so absent feels wrong. At least we finally have re-entry heat. I no longer have to make excuses for Squad about why that fire isn't destroying that ship.

[RoverDude]

In order for LS to make sense in stock, they'd really have to ditch this whole "It's called KERBAL space program" non-argument for not starting off with unmanned missions.

So to me, using the *name* of a game (which could just as easily be "Bob" and it would still be the same game/rose) as some kind of justification for sacrificing all that gameplay depth and diversity is rather laughable, and frankly leaves me face-palming whenever I see it used as a reason for anything

While off topic, I find this an interesting topic in itself. KSP is, first and foremost, about the Kerbals. The endlessly optimistic little guys who succeed through sheer persistence and total disregard for safety.

This is not, as folks have said many times, primarily a simulation. It's a narrative - a story. Where the Kerbals are the protagonists, and should rightfully be the very first experience you have in the game. I totally get that you disagree with that, but that does not in any way diminish that it's the lens through which the gameplay elements are designed and developed.

Heck, I expect if Squad released a game called 'Kerbal Bomb Disposal Program' we would all immediately know precisely what that game would look like. The Kerbals, I expect, contributed far more to the success of KSP than the Space Program part. Though the two combines far surpass the individual components.

So while you may have an opinion on whether you like the Kerbal-centric nature of the game, it does not change the fact that that's pretty much what it is. It really IS all about the Kerbals.

(Now switching to Life Support)

It's why I did my life support as non-lethal by default (tho there's an option for death - boo!). Within the context of that narrative, where the player is the protagonist in the story of the Kerbals, having an unsupplied Kerbal just get grouchy, but leave open the opportunity for rescue, makes sense. It provides a self-spawning objective for the player, and fits well within the canon that has developed around Kerbals.

Just my $0.02.

[FlowerChild]

This is not, as folks have said many times, primarily a simulation. It's a narrative - a story. Where the Kerbals are the protagonists, and should rightfully be the very first experience you have in the game. I totally get that you disagree with that, but that does not in any way diminish that it's the lens through which the gameplay elements are designed and developed.

Actually, I don't think you get my stance on it, as I don't disagree with any of that (other than the very first experience bit)

Was Yuri Gagarin making it into space diminished by Sputnik making it first, or did it amplify the build up to that event?

In other words, I don't think probes doing stuff first de-emphasizes Kerbals in the least. What I think Kerbals-first does is take something away from the "story" aspects of the game by trivializing the struggle that they are facing. Stories are only interesting with some form of conflict involved. Putting a Kerbal on the first rocket you build and having them be totally immune to the dangers of space only diminishes that, and thus decreases the impact of the story overall.

The hero slaying the dragon in the first five minutes of a story (especially if the dragon has had its fire-breathing ability surgically removed first) doesn't put more focus on the hero...it just makes for a bad story.

The Kerbals, I expect, contributed far more to the success of KSP than the Space Program part.

But I do entirely disagree on that one

Edited May 2, 2015 by FlowerChild

[FlowerChild]

Here, actually, it's not like any of these fundamentals to telling a good story are a new concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure

Of particular relevance there is the section on "Rising Action". Essentially, what Kerbals-first has done is completely chop that right out of the story and skipped straight to the climax.

I do not think that anyone would argue at this point that career mode isn't the worst received part of the game right now. Seriously, it would do well for Squad to consider the above, as I strongly believe (I'd even go so far as say "I know" which is exceedingly rare for me as I tend to be rather careful about ever presuming knowledge) that this breakdown in the dramatic structure is at the very root of that problem. You've basically created a progression where first scene has Luke Skywalker butchering a Jawa with his lightsaber, and then a half hour into the movie, you throw R2D2 into the mix against Vader and shout "FIGHT!" wondering why no-one is getting enthusiastic about the whole thing.

You're essentially breaking the entire game progression with the very first node of the game, and then scrambling to try and fix it with the rest of them, to no avail. For a 10 second Jeb-cameo at the start of the game, you're essentially sacrificing what is potentially hours of compelling gameplay, progression and rising action that will make the Kerbals feel like real heroes instead of Jawa-slayers.

Edited May 2, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

I think it's this:

If you're timewarping a probe to another planet, you might forget your Kerbals and then they die. But it's your responsibility to resupply them! right? Right? Yes. But as of now there's not a way to notify you of a need to resupply... Maybe if it were added?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I don't think you get my stance on it, as I don't disagree with any of that (other than the very first experience bit)

Was Yuri Gagarin making it into space diminished by Sputnik making it first, or did it amplify the build up to that event?

In other words, I don't think probes doing stuff first de-emphasizes Kerbals in the least. What I think Kerbals-first does is take something away from the "story" aspects of the game by trivializing the struggle that they are facing. Stories are only interesting with some form of conflict involved. Putting a Kerbal on the first rocket you build and having them be totally immune to the dangers of space only diminishes that, and thus decreases the impact of the story overall.

The hero slaying the dragon in the first five minutes of a story (especially if the dragon has had its fire-breathing ability surgically removed first) doesn't put more focus on the hero...it just makes for a bad story.

But this isn't a hero defeating a dragon in the first five minutes, it's a hero defeating a rather small dragon, and then a new bigger one takes the old dragon's place. This process repeats for some time.

[FlowerChild]

But this isn't a hero defeating a dragon in the first five minutes, it's a hero defeating a rather small dragon, and then a new bigger one takes the old dragon's place. This process repeats for some time.

And each time the hero defeats the next level of Jawa, then R2D2 rolls in trailing behind.

Look, let's put this another way and from a purely game-design perspective:

For the sake of this point, consider for a moment Kerbals and their manned capsules as just a part like any other. Same as engines...same as probe cores.

What the current career-mode progression has happening is that the more powerful parts (the capsules, which can go anywhere without consuming resources, with maximum control authority, and without any other relevant limitations) are the ones you are freely given at start.

Then the rest of the tree has the player working towards unlocking the less powerful parts (the probe cores), which have additional requirements for keeping them operational, which provide diminished science returns, which have reduced control authority, which can't operate several pieces of equipment effectively, etc.

Can you make any reasonable argument for why that would be the case, from the "they're all just parts" perspective? Is it any wonder career mode feels largely broken when it's built upon that framework?

Thus, whether you view it from a story or game design perspective, I would assert the Kerbals-first concept is just plain broken, and again, all for "because...Kerbals" with no real rationale behind it that can withstand further analysis.

Edited May 3, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Bill Phil]

And each time the hero defeats the next level of Jawa, then R2D2 rolls in trailing behind.

Look, let's put this another way and from a purely game-design perspective:

For the sake of this point, consider for a moment Kerbals and their manned capsules as just a part like any other. Same as engines...same as probe cores.

What the current career-mode progression has happening is that the more powerful parts (the capsules, which can go anywhere without consuming resources, with maximum control authority, and without any other relevant limitations) are the ones you are freely given at start.

Then the rest of the tree has the player working towards unlocking the less powerful parts (the probe cores), which have additional requirements for keeping them operational, which provide diminished science returns, which have reduced control authority, which can't operate several pieces of equipment effectively, etc.

Can you make any reasonable argument for why that would be the case, from the "they're all just parts" perspective? Is it any wonder career mode feels largely broken when it's built upon that framework?

Thus, whether you view it from a story or game design perspective, I would assert the Kerbals-first concept is just plain broken, and again, all for "because...Kerbals" with no real rationale behind it that can withstand further analysis.

That would be the case because the mass advantage of a probe over a capsule is big, and thus reducing costs by a large margin. Not to mention they're expendable, whereas if you want the Kerbals back to pilot more ships you literally have to BRING THEM BACK. That adds cost.

[FlowerChild]

That would be the case because the mass advantage of a probe over a capsule is big, and thus reducing costs by a large margin. Not to mention they're expendable, whereas if you want the Kerbals back to pilot more ships you literally have to BRING THEM BACK. That adds cost.

Not sure if I'm willing to argue the sub-points on this man as if small balancing factors somehow equate to large ones.

If you find probe cores to be somehow useful or appropriately placed in the tree, more power to you. From my perspective they're currently an utterly useless part of the game that is given some kind of implied fictional value within the tree by placing them later on within it setting the player up with a sense of false hope that they're working towards something worthwhile, while in reality they're working towards a downgrade and inevitable disappointment when they realize it.

You say tomato, I say pineapple. Let's call the whole thing off

[RoverDude]

Thing is, FC. It's not broken - it makes perfect sense from a narrative standpoint. I totally get that you do not understand/accept this, and made an entire mod based on the fact that you do not agree with the narrative that is part of the game designer's vision. Rock on. But I don't think either of us is going to convince the other of changing their position (I for one, totally get why Felipe did it the way he did, and agree with it), so we can agree to disagree.

[FlowerChild]

Thing is, FC. It's not broken - it makes perfect sense from a narrative standpoint. I totally get that you do not understand/accept this

Well, it is entirely wrong, so yes, I neither understand or accept it by definition

It's all well and good for a designer to have a strong vision man. I'm a big supporter of that.

However, if I went to see the Mona Lisa, and it had a mustache on it, I'd say "I think that's a mistake".

If I had a line of communication to da Vinci I would ask him "Leo! Why the mustache on Mona??!!"

If he were to respond "I wanted to highlight what a real person she is...flaws and all."

I would likely say "You may want to reconsider Leo...I really think it's a mistake. That may sound logical on a surface level, but if you analyze it further I think you'll realize it ruins the overall effect"

If a year later he still hadn't busted out the paint thinner, I'd probably say "that was a mistake, pure and simple".

None of that diminishes da Vinci's genius, implies that I am somehow smarter or more talented, or says that the rest of the painting is not a masterpiece. However, Lisa still has a 'tache, and I'm not going to turn off all form of critical analysis and say it looks good just because I think Leo is a cool and talented guy.

We all make mistakes, even the best and brightest amongst us. Our ability to listen to counter arguments and recognize them for what they are however is the important bit. This was a mistake, and to this day it's still undermining KSP having a decent career mode.

Hehe...and much to my amusement, I was looking a few things up after writing the above, and it turns out I wasn't the first person with this idea:

and made an entire mod based on the fact that you do not agree with the narrative that is part of the game designer's vision.

No, that's just the mod's name. Arguing it drives the entire process or defines the entire design would be as nonsensical as arguing that Kerbals come first because it's called "KERBAL Space Program"

Edited May 3, 2015 by FlowerChild

[rodion_herrera]

Hehe...and much to my amusement, I was looking a few things up after writing the above, and it turns out I wasn't the first person with this idea:

I actually was under the impression that you know about Marcel Duchamp FC, when you gave that example And thanks for your input here, and the others too, lots of great insights. Keep 'em coming.

[FlowerChild]

I actually was under the impression that you know about Marcel Duchamp FC, when you gave that example

Hehe...no, I did not actually. I seem to have a thing for art analogies for some reason, but I am far from being an artist or having a good understanding of art history

For example, and because it's a very amusing aspect of the history of space exploration, I never knew about this until very recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Museum

And ever since learning about it, while I didn't much care for his work before then, Andy Warhol is now a hero of mine, and I can't look up at the moon without cracking a smile

Edited May 3, 2015 by FlowerChild

[WOODY01]

Just scanned this thread so it may have already been stated:

If a LS was added it would need to carry with it a trade off significant enough that the player would need to make a meaningful choice to send a Kerbaled mission or probe. With each choice offering benefits and drawbacks. Otherwise it is just another part to place on the ship that cost you a little delta-v.

It is already somewhat implemented in the game, probes are lighter, cost money to hire more Kerbals, you get less science transmitting data, no way to reset experiments, probally forgetting one or two benefits of probes. I would think if LS were to be added that science returned back to kerbin should be worth less then what a Kerbaled mission brings back.

Now if life support can be done besides the addition of a few parts. It can be used to limit the durations of missions until you get enough tech, have a meaningful impact on the game if a LS requirment is not met like your Kerbals dying or a large reputation loss, more reputation for kerbaled missions completing contracts or visiting other SOI's and biomes, funds reward higher using a kerbaled mission for certain missions, the additional mass added by LS should be enough of an impact on delta-v.

The above would at least give somewhat a meaningful decission to the player as to whether to send a probe or Kerbaled mission and would add that as the player advances in tech sending kerbaled missions become more cost effective and viable option.

I would just prefer to send kerbals and assume that the capsule was designed to hold enough snacks and other things to keep them alive instead of adding to the part count. Who wants to send a probe when you can send a Kerbal like Jeb who is smiling the whole way on reentry after you lost your chutes to the heat?

Edited May 3, 2015 by WOODY01

[RoverDude]

As it stands, sans life support, you send probes due to cost and mass, Kerbals when you need the science bonus or flag planting. The new science lab mechanic adds an incentive for Kerbals (since scientists are required).

Beyond that, for the system as a whole to work, you would need to add some disincentives for probes (such as a remote tech like requirement), and have some added benefit for going kerbal'd (it's one of the reasons you have a pretty massive hit in stock ISRU if you don't send along an engineer). At that point, you weigh in on whether or not the mass tax (which is really what it is, at the end of the day) is worth it.

Mechanics wise, I remain partial to any mechanic defaulting to a recoverable state (in my own life support system, they just get really grouchy and walk off the job. Your ship is now uncontrollable, but at least you can recover from the mistake with a rescue mission).

[FlowerChild]

As it stands, sans life support, you send probes due to cost and mass, Kerbals when you need the science bonus or flag planting.

How does the lower cost and mass make any difference if there's no reason to send them anywhere? Sending manned missions nets more science, both in terms of value on the individual experiments and on manned missions having more experiments available to them with the crew and EVA reports. The mass and cost savings are also essentially lost due to the ability of manned missions to reset and store multiple sets of data with only a single instance of an experiment part, whereas a probe would have to carry multiple experiments to gather the same total number of results (if you don't want to lose the bulk of the value in transmission).

Granted, there are specific contracts requiring probe cores, buts that's only because they specifically require you to use them. There's no real reason for that other than "we're telling you to...so there".

I will also grant that your new resource system provides some small incentive to use them through the broad-scanning part, in that a mission set to a polar orbit is less likely to be one you want to move on to other celestial bodies afterwards, but on the other hand, it's also a good opportunity to send a manned mission and pick up science for any polar biomes you may have previously missed.

I don't think cost and mass really serve as viable balancing factors unless two systems are both actually useful for something.

"Why do I want to buy this decorative sculpture?"

"Because it's cheaper than a car"

"But I need a car to get to work..."

"But the sculpture is cheaper"

Edited May 3, 2015 by FlowerChild

[Louella]

I've had Mun landers tip over on slopes that didn't look steep enough for that to happen. 5degrees or so. Big tall landers, because they were for contracts that wanted a cupola+science laboratory, which necessitates a tall, top-heavy lander.

Tip over, and all that happened was a solar panel broke. Otherwise, the craft and crew survived. But that craft isn't going to launch from the surface again.

Now, to return them to Kerbin, a rescue lander can be built. However, that rescue lander is N days away.

And that problem of the rescue mission being N days away only gets worse when you get further out. Due to both travel time, and launch windows. If a lander on Duna has a problem, then a rescue mission is many, many days away. For some planetary bodies, it would mean that unless a rescue mission had launched only a couple days after the main mission, then rescue is impossible.

Life support changes the nature of Kerbal Space Program more dramatically than anything else, I feel.

It turns the stories that attract people to the game, of "whoops, now, how to sort this", into "Oh. Damn."

Changes the whole principle where, as long as a Kerbal survives the landing, you can always get them back, to one where surviving the landing isn't enough.

That's a bigger change than anything else that's ever been proposed, I think. Well, other than the time the Mun first appeared.

[RoverDude]

And that, Louella, is why I disagree with lethal life support as the default option.

Because in the event of an 'oops' on Laythe/etc., you're pretty much done. And 'oops' that could also be as simple as time warping a little bit too fast. I'd rather have the chance at doing that rescue mission given the opportunity

[Louella]

A less lethal option would be to rethink the whole situation.

Instead of food/drink/air, there are other options.

Instead of Life support, then... Sanity support.

A Kerbal that runs out of their psych-stabilising pills goes insane, and falls into a catatonic state, due to being exposed to the Terrible Secret of Space.

The rate of consumption of psych-stabilising pills might not be uniform - could tie into the Courage/Stupidity traits of the crew or something.

A catatonic Kerbalnaut can be revived by a Rescue mission with a Scientist, but remains in a state where they don't necessarily gain XP for their return to Kerbin.

Which has the result of penalising a failed mission, in career mode, due to lack of XP, but not overly harshly.

And retains the principle of Rescue Is Always Possible.

[Wayfare]

I'm fine with that as well in all cases where I think it actually contributes to gameplay. In this case though, I really don't (and never have). What people tend not to get about the whole "Better Than Starting Manned" thing at first glance is that it really has nothing to do with realism (despite what Manley may have said in his vid )

(...)

So to me, using the *name* of a game (which could just as easily be "Bob" and it would still be the same game/rose) as some kind of justification for sacrificing all that gameplay depth and diversity is rather laughable, and frankly leaves me face-palming whenever I see it used as a reason for anything

I think we're trying to say the same thing here. Since the tech tree was introduced there has been an explicit focus on making the Kerbals take center stage. In fact this was something that had been hotly debated until then, as it always seemed there was no real point in sending Kerbals anywhere when a lighter probe could do the job just as well. Now with 1.0 this design problem seems to have been reversed: Kerbals are now required to get max science returns, max prestige, to operate mobile labs and ISRU as efficiently as possible, to provide SAS functions to spacecraft. They're better than probes in every way except mass, a penalty that is easily offset by the greater returns on a successful manned mission as opposed to an unmanned one. Which now leaves us wondering: what are probes good for?

With Kerbals being the bee's knees, an obvious way to pace the progression of the game would be to introduce some barrier to how far Kerbals can go until Milestone X has been achieved. Life support, in whatever form, is the first thing that springs to mind.

Mind you, in a more general sense I'd like to see a more clear distinction between what probes can do and what Kerbals can do. I'd like to see probes defined as pathfinders, able to range out ahead but simply incapable of doing as much when they get there. I'd like more instances where the game makes me think "ah, this is clearly a job for a probe!" The scanning mechanics for ISRU are a good example of this. It feels right to have a probe scan the planet, then have a lander/rover perform more detailed scans and finally mark the perfect site for the manned mining rig to exploit. Pathfinding! Or, well, prospecting in this case. You get the idea

[RoverDude]

@Wayfare - the prospecting mechanic was by design

(edit)

That being said - I'm perfectly fine with things being Kerbal-centric. I use lots of probes in early career because the mass penalty (and cost of kerbonaughts) is a real one. Later in career, we lack an appropriate lever to discourage sending Jeb on a one way trip to eeloo, so it's all about balance. But balance does not necessarily mean equal, and if we land in a place where the probe cores have a secondary, specialized role (but still a role), I'm fine with that.

I have some ideas, but that's a topic for another thread

Edited May 3, 2015 by RoverDude

[Wayfare]

@Wayfare - the prospecting mechanic was by design

Yup, that's why I used it as an example

I like the work you've done on ISRU and the mobile lab and how it makes both Kerbals and probes valuable assets, especially considering how long that particular design challenge has loomed over KSP. I'll be looking forward to what you and the others come up with next. My hope is that it will have a wider scope. KSP finally seems truly 'feature complete' so it would seem natural to now really develop an arch / narrative / progression / pacing / call it what you will and balance all the game's elements around that.