What kind of life support would you like to see in stock?

[tater]

An actual greenhouse (glass roof) should itself function as a solar panel for its own use, and only require added power at night, or if the insolation is below some value. "Closed" (to the sun) greenhouses are obviously different.

[Ignath]

I think the USI Life Support is very well suited for stock.

This right here. USI Life Support was basically written to be adapted to the stock game.

[Wjolcz]

Thats perfect, but I would still advise some way to warn players so they don't timewarp and accidentally kill LKO stations, or munar bases, ect, that might not have the greenhouse bit.

Yeah, I was about to quote your post from the beginning of the thread (which I didn't do, because using the forum on mobile is painful) about the warnings. Something KAC-like that would calculate the next low-dV transfer, so you could send the supplies interplanetary if needed, would be great.

EDIT: And about kerbals dying... When I mean Kerbals die, they die-die. No corpses though. When there's no food on-board the crew should be able to survive for a week, or two and then if the supplies don't come in time they simply vanish and appear MIA on KSC's roster.

Ghost stations! Scaaaaaaaaaary!

Edited August 18, 2015 by Veeltch

[tater]

Yeah, USILS needs a warning system of some sort.

[Alshain]

None, Life Support does not belong in stock. There should be absolutely no Life support in stock.

[Wjolcz]

None, Life Support does not belong in stock. There should be absolutely no Life support in stock.

Why not?

[pincushionman]

I'm halfway with Alshain in that if we never get life support, I won't be too put out. But if we did, I would back something with a GLSR (generic life support resource) paradigm like USILS and Snacks! do. With appropriate management options (supplies: pack/grow; waste: stow/recycle/dump), of course.

I'm going to bring up something brought up in another thread, though - mission planning. I posted in that thread and may have blown off the question a little (and if I did, I apologize because it was important). The gist of it is that the implementation of resources is really easy, and we can thank Roverdude for that - but knowing how much to take is most certainly not, because we don't have any in-game tools for it.

What I see is: Current Mission Control contract functionality is moved to Admin Building, freeing Mission Control for mission planning activities. It has a simplified version of Tracking Center interface, with a 2-D display of planets and user-selected target objects. You can add "legs" of a trip, each with a starting and ending orbit (within altitude and inclination ranges), and will best-guess a trajectory starting at a user-defined time in the future, and give DV and duration estimates, assuming competent flying.

Building upgrades would allow warnings of SOI interferences or reccomendations to wait for least-time or least-dV.

TL;DR: The actual resource implementation side of life support is actually pretty easy - trivial, I'd argue, especially if it uses a GLSR. But it causes issues to mission planning that we don't have good tools for.

[Mr. Scruffy]

I think a simple system with 1 massless resource that is consumed at a set rate.

The space that doesn't contain the resource is assumed to contain waste.

All pods have some, (enough for minmus) lander cans significantly less. (enough for landing)

Mid game you get containers for interplanetary missions.

Lategame you get an recycler that is extremely heavy (>20t) but 100% efficient, uses a lot of electricity to generate LS at speed high enough for 10 kerbals.

Difficulty option for LS off/disable kerbals without LS/Kill kerbals without ls.

Pods also should require some electricity. (less than probes?)

Kerbals on EVA take LS from the capsule, maybe the amount can be upgraded somehow.

It is very important that it is also consumed on ships that aren't focused.

I think this would be enough for stock, maybe some kind of weaker recycler that just reduces the rate of consumption by a large amount. (90%)

Yes, this sounds simple enough and thought out.

[tater]

Yeah, 'Mission Control" in KSP is not mission control at all. In fact, the "tracking station" is Mission Control. Mission Control is but definition the place where missions in flight are controlled. I dunno how it got where it is in KSP, it'd be like calling the VAB the launch pad, frankly, I just don't understand it.

Scheduling would be incredibly useful, including a drop from time warp X days before supplies run out.

Those claiming they want "none" should take a look at the default implementation of USILS, as it doesn't kill anyone, and the original 4 kerbals are immune. I turn death on, myself, as LS without that seems utterly pointless to me.

Time is the mechanic most needed in KSP, honestly, and Squad's aversion to it is similarly bizarre.

Any stock life support by Squad would also need to address contracts at the same time, BTW, IMO, to make some of them make sense. Rescues in particular. The clock needs to be ticking on any such contract. Now that they have pods, in USILS, that should mean 15 days. Note that the time limit should be included in the time to decline. Ie: any rescue should have 15 days to accept, and 15 days to failure. If you wait 10 days to accept, you then have 5 days to failure. Of course they need to fix the issue with you being spammed with rescues for places you have not been with kerbals by predicating them on a flag placement or something. Maybe even a check to see if you have a manned craft in the world's SoI. Alternately, any rescue past Kerbin SoI could be for a reasonable looking craft (and actual craft, not a pod). Say 10-20 parts, tops, including LS supplies, with a time limit based upon those supplies. So you might have X hundred days to get a Duna rescue there, so that the mission requires a fastest transit path, making it harder (and worth more rep, etc).

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, this sounds simple enough and thought out.

Except it should not be massless, that part makes no sense at all.

[rcp27]

Looking at USI, it seems to have the right sort of balance.

What I want to see:

simplicity. One supply resource, one waste resource, some sort of (probably big) part that can regenerate waste to supply. If we run out of storage for waste, dump it into space.

mild failure conditions. Turning kerbals into "tourists" when they run out works reasonably well. Alternative, if you want to make life easy, make them revert to "zero star" level when they run out. There needs to be a mechanic to prevent abuse of "deactivating" access to supplies to "hibernate" Kerbals.

heat. Now that we have radiator panels, have pods consume electrical power to stay warn and need radiators to keep cool (and consider solar radiation, so that cooling is important near Moho, heating is important out at Eloo).

Potatoes. Because Mark Watney. Have a module that only works when landed, that converts power to potatoes (generic supply resource).

What I don't want to see:

Lots of resources. TAC Life Support is a great mod for the realism crowd, but it's not the right solution for the stock game.

Death. Yes, it's realistic. No, it's not fun. If I don't know how long a mission will take, I don't want to die if I get it wrong.

[Randazzo]

Why not?

Adding complications for the sake of doing so is always a poor design choice. If anything gets implemented in stock it needs to be entirely optional and off by default.

Also keep in mind that anything converted to stock will likely have to be gutted so it appeals to the masses. We wouldn't get a straight implementation of USI or TAC.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Randazzo

[RoverDude]

Actually, I'd say that life support is one of those large missing pieces in the stock game - it's a pretty important part of space travel, so it would be nice to see it make it's way in at some point. It's not adding a complication for the sake of complication, it's adding in a missing constraint for the sake of completeness.

[regex]

None, Life Support does not belong in stock. There should be absolutely no Life support in stock.

Life support is a huge part of space travel, especially interplanetary travel, and should definitely be represented in a game about space travel. Not having life support is just as much a slap in the face of reason as the lack of reentry heating was. Besides, there's nothing wrong with adding a fully closed-loop system for bases in stock now that we have a magical ISRU system, which should assuage any arguments about requiring supply missions.

I haven't looked too much into USI beyond let's play videos (I prefer the detail of TACLS) but I do know that Kerbals should die, not just become unresponsive.

And for <deity's> sake, let's hope it isn't called "snacks"... At least USI did us that courtesy.

[Randazzo]

Actually, I'd say that life support is one of those large missing pieces in the stock game - it's a pretty important part of space travel, so it would be nice to see it make it's way in at some point. It's not adding a complication for the sake of complication, it's adding in a missing constraint for the sake of completeness.

Life support is one of those elements that gets added to something just so the player can work to remove it. When you start dealing with years long journeys, you either have prohibitively massive amounts of life support required, or you have other parts to cancel out the need for it in the first place (stasis and or closed loop parts), in which case it's still really added nothing except the amount of mass you have to drag to Eeloo, unless of course there's some sort of fresh implementation we've not seen with anything available out there currently.

I'd like to add that I tried out TAC for a bit, but eventually found it to be complicated to the point that it ceased to be enjoyable. I tried USI-LS after that and found the balance to be far more enjoyable and suitable to Kerbal (particularly not forcing death into the game), but that eventually wore out too. The beauty here is that I was able to remove it. If it were mandatory, despite the fact that it was fun for a long time, I'd have likely just stopped playing. (That probably doesn't strike anyone as particularly tragic.)

If it gets put in, it should be entirely optional.

Edit: Really all we'll prove here is that everybody has an opinion. I think I just got an idea for another mod..

Edited August 10, 2015 by Randazzo

[RoverDude]

What life support would add to stock would be the appropriate counterbalance to the probe control and antenna relays you are getting with 1.1 - so now there are some interesting choices regarding manned vs unmanned flights.

[regex]

it's still really added nothing except the amount of mass you have to drag to Eeloo

I used to think this way too until I did an ISRU-fueled grand tour, then my limiter was life support. Instead of sending refueling missions I sent life support missions, adding a level of planning (E: and tension) beyond the single ship. It can also provide a nice progression mechanic for early career mode, especially if Kerbin/Mun/Minmus science gains are tuned down. Basically it adds detail to planning a mission, something that KSP doesn't really excel at.

If it gets put in, it should be entirely optional.

I don't see how it couldn't be optional (on by default) considering how other recent features have been implemented. Edited August 10, 2015 by regex

[tater]

Regarding "end game" making it 100% closed loop, I think that that should not happen, personally. A critical issue with KSP as a game is that it gets easier, not harder as you progress. USILS has a nice element in the 15 day grace period (as does Snacks! in base supplies per pod) in that early play can ignore it.

As issue I sill have with USILS vs Snacks! (I'm with regex on the name, preach it, brotha'!) is that the 15 days is not 15 kerbal-days. A 3 man pod with 1 crew should do better than a 3 man with 3 crew. I suppose I could alter the cfg so that it's fewer days, then add supplies to make up the balance in my install...

In both I set death on, though.

Increasing the mass required to Eeloo or whatever is desirable, it is not a problem. It's supposed to be difficult to visit the outer solar system with crewed vehicles. If you cannot manage this in late game play, what's the point? At that point, you have all the parts. This extra mass is in fact the only thing that would slightly mitigate the fact that play gets easier as you progress.

I have to admit, when I see craft for visiting places outside Kerbin SoI, I always judge them based upon how habitable they look for X years travel. 10 years in a room the size of a hall closet doesn't cut it.

[monstah]

I agree with RoverDude: LS adds not just complications, but planning needs. It also gives you something to do: unless you have big, heavy, expensive and power-hungry greenhouses on your station, you can't just forget about it, but must keep it supplied.

I'm in for a simple implementation, like stock Ore. No influence/inactive Kerbals/dead Kerbals seems like a good enough difficulty choice to me, too.

- - - Updated - - -

Also: I wish for the least ammount of new parts possible. Consumables may be added to pods. The Hitchhiker compartment could have a better ratio of supplies per inhabitant, so it could be thought of as "living quarters", and a greenhouse... well, that would be new.

[klgraham1013]

Adding complications for the sake of doing so is always a poor design choice. If anything gets implemented in stock it needs to be entirely optional and off by default.

Also keep in mind that anything converted to stock will likely have to be gutted so it appeals to the masses. We wouldn't get a straight implementation of USI or TAC.

It's not complication for the sake of it. It's one of the most apparent challenges of space travel that KSP is adamantly ignoring.

[Randazzo]

It's not complication for the sake of it. It's one of the most apparent challenges of space travel that KSP is adamantly ignoring.

Good point. They should remove time warp as well, so that we can experience the fun of realistic space travel.

[regex]

Good point. They should remove time warp as well, so that we can experience the fun of realistic space travel.

Well, if we're going the strawman route, why not deal away with fuel since it's a needless complication that just adds mass.

[tater]

Good point. They should remove time warp as well, so that we can experience the fun of realistic space travel.

This is a total straw man.

It is an unambiguous plus for gameplay. It creates a rationale for manned vs unmanned missions. It creates a small amount of meaningful time progression (you need to complete missions, or mount time-critical rescues, etc). It actually increases difficulty somewhat with progression (instead of the opposite). No downsides I can see at all (of course I always play with LS anyway).

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if we're going the strawman route, why not deal away with fuel since it's a needless complication that just adds mass.

LOL, true. Or indeed any physics at all. How about liftwood?

[Randazzo]

I would define strawman for you fellas, but I think I'd be wasting my time. Regardless, it does not apply.

Neither of you are dull enough not to get the point, you just don't like it.

Real /= Fun

To which someone will inevitably reply that doesn't apply, yadda yadda, etc etc. Time for me to go before I get the thread locked or earn an infraction.

[regex]

I would define strawman for you fellas, but I think I'd be wasting my time. Regardless, it does not apply.

Quite right, your point was reductio ad absurdum.

Neither of you are dull enough not to get the point, you just don't like it.

No, your point just doesn't stand because it is nothing but an exageration. And realism in this case is an argument for deeper, more involved gameplay; fun for those of us who enjoy that.

[Alshain]

Why not?

Because KSP is not real life. People try to equate KSP with NASA or ESA or ROSCOSMOS. KSP has one employee, you, compared to the thousands in these space agencies. It also has no computer systems for automated flight. It also has the ability to send manned missions to a Jupiter-like planet on 1970's technology (or even 2010 technology), which is not a bad thing unless you add life support. It also has the ability to have more than two space stations to maintain, Earth has just two in all the solar system.

Life support does not belong in this game, it belongs in real life. If you want it, that is what mods are for and that's where it should stay. Life support should not be in the game for the same reason N-body physics should not be in the game, it's tedious.

Even if they did add it, they would have to pick one and likely the majority of the community would be greatly disappointed anyway, either because they didn't want life support, or the wanted one of the styles that wasn't chosen (whether it be TAC, Snacks, or USI). Let's just say there was a perfectly even split of people using stock, TAC, Snacks, and USI. That means 3/4 of the users will hate it. So why waste dev time on it anyway, when most people will end up using mods to replace it or remove it. (I have the same question for the antenna thing they are adding in 1.1 btw). At least with ISRU you can simply ignore it.

What life support would add to stock would be the appropriate counterbalance to the probe control and antenna relays you are getting with 1.1 - so now there are some interesting choices regarding manned vs unmanned flights.

If they weren't adding that ridiculousness, they wouldn't have to counterbalance it. That also belongs in mods, not stock. Anything more than a flat antenna range limitation is too complicated and tedious for the stock game (and I am a remote tech user too, so that should be telling you something).

It's not complication for the sake of it. It's one of the most apparent challenges of space travel that KSP is adamantly ignoring.

Ignoring, with good reason.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Alshain