Are there any downsides to time warping in career?

[KocLobster]

Besides the obvious contracts expiring or failing to complete on time, are there any downsides to time warping in career mode? I'm referring to large amounts of time warp of course, like months or years. From what I understand, there really isn't. I don't necessarily agree with this and think I'm going to reinstall a LS mod.

[max_creative]

Not really I guess. Plus it gets in the way during interplanetary transfers then. If you fail a contract, oh well. If your doing an interplanetary transfer get KAC and maybe do some stuff while your waiting. So short answer: in my opinion, no.

[FancyMouse]

Drifting for satellites on synchronous orbit or in the same network.

[KocLobster]

16 hours ago, max_creative said:

Not really I guess. Plus it gets in the way during interplanetary transfers then. If you fail a contract, oh well. If your doing an interplanetary transfer get KAC and maybe do some stuff while your waiting. So short answer: in my opinion, no.

This is what I've done, I love KAC. I am going to install a LS mod though because I don't feel like this is realistic enough.

[Geschosskopf]

On 4/9/2016 at 7:45 PM, KocLobster said:

Besides the obvious contracts expiring or failing to complete on time, are there any downsides to time warping in career mode? I'm referring to large amounts of time warp of course, like months or years. From what I understand, there really isn't. I don't necessarily agree with this and think I'm going to reinstall a LS mod.

Either I don't understand your problem or you don't understand time warp

Time-warping only changes the ratio between elapsed time in the game and elapsed time in the real world.  It does NOT change the amount of game time that passes.  IOW, to the Kerbals, a trip of 2 years (say going from Kerbin to Jool) will always take 2 years of game time whether you warp or not.  The only thing that changes is that instead of you personally having to sit there for 2 years in the real world waiting for the ship to arrive, you only have to wait a few minutes.  But it still takes 2 years from the Kerbals' POV.  Thus, whether you warp or not, the ship will always need 2 years of life support for the trip, if you use life support.  Warping has nothing at all to do with this.  IOW, time warp is just a convenience for players.  Nothing more or less.

Thus, the question of whether or not to use life support comes down simply to whether or not you want to mess with it.  All life support really does is add complexity to ship design, period.  It really gives you nothing in return.  All you do is figure out how long a trip will last, put in that amount of supplies plus whatever extra makes you happy, and then you never think about it again for the duration of the mission.  So why bother?  If you don't think a Kerbal should be able to survive 50 years in a 1-seat capsule, then don't put him in that position.  Role-playing to your own set of mental rules is just as effective, and a lot easier, than messing with life support.

 

[Kosmognome]

@Geschosskopf You are making it a bit too easy. In th stock game, there is no punishment for using time-warp. That means that at all times, solutions that are the most delta-v efficient are the "best" decisions. It also means taht you don#t need to use an Ore Scanner to scan for high re concentrations. Just land and drill, and if you happen to be in a bad spot, then simply increase time-warp a bit more. Also science labs. In the stock game, you can basically cheat yourself infinite science with them by time-warping a lot, without punishment.

 

What an LS mod does is adding depth to the game by providing more choices in strategies. Suddenly, an expensive delta-v maneuver can be very desirable instead of a low-delta-v maneuver, because it allows you to finish within your supply limit. it also makes scanning for proper ore sites desirable, and fixes the problem with the science lab.

 

Setting yourself mental rules and role-playing is certainly a viable strategy, but that is no argument against using a mod to enhance the experience. With that argument a lot of mods would be superfluos. I still think that when you want to have more severy consequences for time-warping, using a mod to actually provide incentives not to time-warp is much more enjoyable for a lot of people then just setting arbitrary rules not to do so. I certainly feel more immersed when the rules are enforced by the game and refrelcted in the game instead of when they only exist in my head.

[Geschosskopf]

10 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

@Geschosskopf You are making it a bit too easy.

So?  Everything you mentioned is a choice that individual players might make, but it has zero bearing on what you do in your own game.  Why are you so worried about what other people do in their own games?

But if you do worry about that, let me ease your mind.  It's a LOT easier to create your career game with such easy settings that you hardly need to fly at all, than it is to use hard settings and then exploit around them.  So very if any people would do that but if that's what they enjoy doing, who are you to ruin their fun?  You play your game the way you want,.

 

Quote

Setting yourself mental rules and role-playing is certainly a viable strategy, but that is no argument against using a mod to enhance the experience. With that argument a lot of mods would be superfluos. I still think that when you want to have more severy consequences for time-warping, using a mod to actually provide incentives not to time-warp is much more enjoyable for a lot of people then just setting arbitrary rules not to do so. I certainly feel more immersed when the rules are enforced by the game and refrelcted in the game instead of when they only exist in my head.

I have been using life support for the last several years.  I've built entire empires around nearly all the LS mods several times each.  And this vast experience has recently led me to the highly informed decision that I will NEVER use life support again because it's totally useless.  If you're any good at all at designing, building, and flying ships, then you will never get in a situation where life support failure becomes an issue.  All you get from an LS mod is an extra step in the ship design process.  Once you've got the ship built, the ONLY impact LS has on gameplay is that sometimes you have to remember to turn the recyclers on.  But once you do that, you never think about lLS again for the duration of the mission.  Thus, it's just a waste of time.

And like I said, LS makes zero difference to time warp.  The trip is always the same length to the Kerbals whether you warp or not, so you always need the same amount of supplies whether you warp or not.

The consequences for timewarp are missing out on opportunities to make money via contracts, and missing transfer windows to other planets.  Those are the ONLY consequences of warping whether you have LS or not, and if you use LS, it makes no difference to those consequences.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Geschosskopf

[KocLobster]

17 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Either I don't understand your problem or you don't understand time warp

Time-warping only changes the ratio between elapsed time in the game and elapsed time in the real world.  It does NOT change the amount of game time that passes.  IOW, to the Kerbals, a trip of 2 years (say going from Kerbin to Jool) will always take 2 years of game time whether you warp or not.  The only thing that changes is that instead of you personally having to sit there for 2 years in the real world waiting for the ship to arrive, you only have to wait a few minutes.  But it still takes 2 years from the Kerbals' POV.  Thus, whether you warp or not, the ship will always need 2 years of life support for the trip, if you use life support.  Warping has nothing at all to do with this.  IOW, time warp is just a convenience for players.  Nothing more or less.

Thus, the question of whether or not to use life support comes down simply to whether or not you want to mess with it.  All life support really does is add complexity to ship design, period.  It really gives you nothing in return.  All you do is figure out how long a trip will last, put in that amount of supplies plus whatever extra makes you happy, and then you never think about it again for the duration of the mission.  So why bother?  If you don't think a Kerbal should be able to survive 50 years in a 1-seat capsule, then don't put him in that position.  Role-playing to your own set of mental rules is just as effective, and a lot easier, than messing with life support.

 

I think you just misunderstood my problem. I am aware that is how time warp works and I'm aware that is how LS mods function. I didn't necessarily 'agree' with a Kerbal being able to survive year long trips with no life support, so I mentioned I was going to re-add a LS mod to my game. It's preference.

@Kosmognome

+1 to everything he said. This is why I want to get another LS mod.

4 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

So?  Everything you mentioned is a choice that individual players might make, but it has zero bearing on what you do in your own game.  Why are you so worried about what other people do in their own games?

But if you do worry about that, let me ease your mind.  It's a LOT easier to create your career game with such easy settings that you hardly need to fly at all, than it is to use hard settings and then exploit around them.  So very if any people would do that but if that's what they enjoy doing, who are you to ruin their fun?  You play your game the way you want,.

 

I have been using life support for the last several years.  I've built entire empires around nearly all the LS mods several times each.  And this vast experience has recently led me to the highly informed decision that I will NEVER use life support again because it's totally useless.  If you're any good at all at designing, building, and flying ships, then you will never get in a situation where life support failure becomes an issue.  All you get from an LS mod is an extra step in the ship design process.  Once you've got the ship built, the ONLY impact LS has on gameplay is that sometimes you have to remember to turn the recyclers on.  But once you do that, you never think about lLS again for the duration of the mission.  Thus, it's just a waste of time.

And like I said, LS makes zero difference to time warp.  The trip is always the same length to the Kerbals whether you warp or not, so you always need the same amount of supplies whether you warp or not.

The consequences for timewarp are missing out on opportunities to make money via contracts, and missing transfer windows to other planets.  Those are the ONLY consequences of warping whether you have LS or not, and if you use LS, it makes no difference to those consequences.

I think you're completely missing the point: that some of us just enjoy using LS mods. That's all there is to it....and it seems like you're being slightly hypocritical by coming down on our use or desire to use LS mods.

[Kosmognome]

9 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

So?  Everything you mentioned is a choice that individual players might make, but it has zero bearing on what you do in your own game.  Why are you so worried about what other people do in their own games?

I don't, and I'm not really sure why you would think that. I espacially don't know what you mean with the paragraph following that, because I certainly don't want to ruin anyones fun or tell anyone how to play the game.

The original question was if there are any downsides to time-warping in the stock game in career mode. Aside from contracts expiring, there is none. I answered that question and highlighted which balancing problems occur by that game-behavior. I also highlighted that this balancing problem can be kept in check by using an LS mod, just like the OP said.

You argued that one doesn't need a mod to impose self-restrictions to time-warping, and that one can use "mental rules" - which imho is a form of meta-gaming. All I did was highlighting that for many people a mod still is preferable, because it offers more immersion and satisfaction  then self-imposed arbitrary rules.

I highly respect that you want to discuss pros and cons of life support mods, and you certainly have some good points, but imho your analysis falls short on some points. I agree that most LS mods somewhat defeat their own purpose by offering greenhouses etc.only bloat your rocket to a bigger size. But even that is in some way balancing, especially in career. But balancing issues of LS mods is another topic entirely.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Kosmognome

[Geschosskopf]

10 hours ago, KocLobster said:

I think you're completely missing the point: that some of us just enjoy using LS mods. That's all there is to it....and it seems like you're being slightly hypocritical by coming down on our use or desire to use LS mods.

No, it's just that your OP was a non-sequitur.  You seemed to be trying to use what you perceived as undesirable effects of time warp to justify getting into LS.  I was just pointing out that this was a non-sequitur because one has nothing to do with the other.  I have no idea how much you've used LS in the past but your OP  made it seem like you didn't have much experience, so I was merely trying to keep you from expecting LS to be something it's not.

But if you want to use LS,for some other reason, knock yourself out.  You will find, however, that if you're already in the habit of pretending you have life support, then adding LS to your game will have zero effect.  You'll still stay out only the minimum time to accomplish the mission objectives, and all LS will give you is bloat.

This is why I have finally washed my hands of all LS mods after years of using them religiously.  I've come to the conclusion that there are 2 types of players:

1. Those who exploit the fact that Kerbals don't need LS in stock; and
2. Those who don't (which includes me).

Group #1 will never use LS.  Group #2 doesn't need LS because they already play like they've got it, and adding LS won't change anything in their games.  Thus, LS mods at the bottom line don't do anything for anybody so are completely pointless.

Therefore, arguing about LS is also pointless.  The only people who do are the egoists in Group #2 who worry too much about what members of Group #1 are doing in their own games, and are trying to make themselves feel superior.  As we both seem to be in Group #2, we've got nothing to argue about.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Geschosskopf

[Kerbart]

On 4/10/2016 at 6:16 AM, Geschosskopf said:

Either I don't understand your problem or you don't understand time warp

Time-warping only changes the ratio between elapsed time in the game and elapsed time in the real world.  It does NOT change the amount of game time that passes.  IOW, to the Kerbals, a trip of 2 years (say going from Kerbin to Jool) will always take 2 years of game time whether you warp or not. (...)

Thus, the question of whether or not to use life support comes down simply to whether or not you want to mess with it.  All life support really does is add complexity to ship design, period.  It really gives you nothing in return.  All you do is figure out how long a trip will last, put in that amount of supplies plus whatever extra makes you happy, and then you never think about it again for the duration of the mission.  So why bother?  If you don't think a Kerbal should be able to survive 50 years in a 1-seat capsule, then don't put him in that position.  Role-playing to your own set of mental rules is just as effective, and a lot easier, than messing with life support.

The only exception I can see on this is the practice of putting a bunch of laboratories in orbit and fast forward as they generate science. Of course there are about a million arguments against using LS to counter this, the most obvious ones being:

• Don’t gather science that way it if you regard that practice as cheating or joy removing (duh).
• You can put those labs next to the VAB and still collect science that way, LS is not going to stop you.
• If you really want science without working for it why not use the debug window?

So yeah... don't use LS to stop you from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.

[Geschosskopf]

2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

So yeah... don't use LS to stop you from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.

Amen.  

[KocLobster]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

No, it's just that your OP was a non-sequitur.  You seemed to be trying to use what you perceived as undesirable effects of time warp to justify getting into LS.  I was just pointing out that this was a non-sequitur because one has nothing to do with the other.  I have no idea how much you've used LS in the past but your OP  made it seem like you didn't have much experience, so I was merely trying to keep you from expecting LS to be something it's not.

But if you want to use LS,for some other reason, knock yourself out.  You will find, however, that if you're already in the habit of pretending you have life support, then adding LS to your game will have zero effect.  You'll still stay out only the minimum time to accomplish the mission objectives, and all LS will give you is bloat.

This is why I have finally washed my hands of all LS mods after years of using them religiously.  I've come to the conclusion that there are 2 types of players:

1. Those who exploit the fact that Kerbals don't need LS in stock; and
2. Those who don't (which includes me).

Group #1 will never use LS.  Group #2 doesn't need LS because they already play like they've got it, and adding LS won't change anything in their games.  Thus, LS mods at the bottom line don't do anything for anybody so are completely pointless.

Therefore, arguing about LS is also pointless.  The only people who do are the egoists in Group #2 who worry too much about what members of Group #1 are doing in their own games, and are trying to make themselves feel superior.  As we both seem to be in Group #2, we've got nothing to argue about.

This is of course an opinion, not really a definitive fact.

I get the feeling you play KSP with the idea it can be beaten somehow...

7 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

All I did was highlighting that for many people a mod still is preferable, because it offers more immersion and satisfaction  then self-imposed arbitrary rules.

+1 thank you

[Snark]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

This is why I have finally washed my hands of all LS mods after years of using them religiously.  I've come to the conclusion that there are 2 types of players:

1. Those who exploit the fact that Kerbals don't need LS in stock; and
2. Those who don't (which includes me).

Group #1 will never use LS.  Group #2 doesn't need LS because they already play like they've got it, and adding LS won't change anything in their games.  Thus, LS mods at the bottom line don't do anything for anybody so are completely pointless.

Well, opinions can vary.  After all, it took you a few years of playing with LS before you decided not to.  My read of that is not that you're just slow on the uptake ... just that you needed a certain amount of playtime with them to get it out of your system.  So other folks may need the same.

I play some careers with LS, and some not.  When I use it, I enjoy it.  It adds a dimension to design that wouldn't exist otherwise.  You can say "nonsense", and maybe it is nonsense for you, fair 'nuff-- but not for me, and not for a fair number of other folks who enjoy it, too.  If LS were just inherently stupid, so many people wouldn't be using it.

There are scenarios that I find make it more interesting for me.  What happens when something goes wrong on a mission, and suddenly "oh well, I'll just take another couple of orbits to hit rendezvous" is no longer an option?  What about the design tradeoff between "carry more supplies" versus "carry more fuel so I get there quicker"?  And sure, I could just leave a LS mod out of the equation and design all my ships as if it were a factor... but the LS mod takes care of the bookkeeping for me, and I have the option of adjusting mission parameters in flight and having something that will keep track.

I generally don't "roleplay" KSP much.  But one aspect that I've never quite been able to shake loose of is... I roleplay the kerbal calendar.  It bugs me when years go by and I'm just timewarping; I find myself identifying with the kerbals, and thinking "gosh this is boring, I don't wanna have to wait for years". It's what drives me to run lots of missions concurrently rather than do them one by one.  Maybe a LS mod would be meaningless if I just did one mission at a time.. but when I've got a lot of missions going all at once, I really don't want to have to keep track of how long they "should" survive.

My own advice to @KocLobster is pretty much the same answer I'd give to anybody who's wondering "I'm thinking of playing with X, is it worth it?":  namely, give it a try, and if you like it, stick with it.    

KSP is plenty of fun without LS.  I've found that it can also be a different kind of fun with it.

[Guest]

On 4/9/2016 at 5:45 PM, KocLobster said:

Besides the obvious contracts expiring or failing to complete on time, are there any downsides to time warping in career mode? I'm referring to large amounts of time warp of course, like months or years. From what I understand, there really isn't. I don't necessarily agree with this and think I'm going to reinstall a LS mod.

Try using a life support mod and removing all traces of recyclers or other such equipment that extend your supplies past what you have on board while running multiple missions at the same time.  It adds an element of planning to the game and makes it all very real when you have stranded personnel, although some might find it tedious or simply an exercise in "moar parts".  It's really up to how much you enjoy the details.

[numerobis]

Personally I find immersion hard to maintain when I can, in one day of game-time (6 hours in simulation), design and launch several rockets; research all the way from tier 0 to tier 4; upgrade several facilities; and launch my first trip to a moon. Especially when contracts to test something on the launch pad have 5 to 10-year expiration dates. The whole time scale seems a bit messed up.

[Geschosskopf]

10 hours ago, KocLobster said:

This is of course an opinion, not really a definitive fact.

Don't worry, after playing with LS for a while, you'll come to the same conclusion

 

10 hours ago, Snark said:

Well, opinions can vary.  After all, it took you a few years of playing with LS before you decided not to.  My read of that is not that you're just slow on the uptake ... just that you needed a certain amount of playtime with them to get it out of your system.  So other folks may need the same.

LS is like marriage.  Sooner or later, you'll come to the conclusion that it's a lot easier just to find a woman you don't like and buy her a house than it is to waste time with all the preliminaries   But no matter how often they hear this from their seniors, most guys don't accept this until ex-wife #3 or so....

 

Quote

I play some careers with LS, and some not.  When I use it, I enjoy it.  It adds a dimension to design that wouldn't exist otherwise.  You can say "nonsense", and maybe it is nonsense for you, fair 'nuff-- but not for me, and not for a fair number of other folks who enjoy it, too.  If LS were just inherently stupid, so many people wouldn't be using it.

I never said LS is inherently stupid, just that it's pointless.  That's a totally different thing.  And by "pointless", I reckon LS the same as painting your toenails, regardless of your gender or orientation.  You only do that to make a statement, either to yourself or others, but it has zero effect on the physical mechanics of walking.  Same with LS.

 

Quote

There are scenarios that I find make it more interesting for me.  What happens when something goes wrong on a mission, and suddenly "oh well, I'll just take another couple of orbits to hit rendezvous" is no longer an option? 

Like I said above, if you're competent at designing and flying ships, then nothing ever goes wrong unless you introduce Space Madness  as a plot device in the story you're telling.  And by the time you reach this level of competence, you're going places where there's no hope of rescue before any reasonable amount of supplies run out.  In which case, termination via the Tracking Station is the only humane option.

 

Quote

What about the design tradeoff between "carry more supplies" versus "carry more fuel so I get there quicker"?  And sure, I could just leave a LS mod out of the equation and design all my ships as if it were a factor... but the LS mod takes care of the bookkeeping for me, and I have the option of adjusting mission parameters in flight and having something that will keep track.

There is no tradeoff.  You always design the ship with enough fuel to do its intended job and enough supplies to last however long that takes.  Building LS into your ship is exactly the same as building dV and TWR into it.  In all of those, you design the ship to have enough of them all to do its job.

 

Quote

I generally don't "roleplay" KSP much.  But one aspect that I've never quite been able to shake loose of is... I roleplay the kerbal calendar.  It bugs me when years go by and I'm just timewarping; I find myself identifying with the kerbals, and thinking "gosh this is boring, I don't wanna have to wait for years". It's what drives me to run lots of missions concurrently rather than do them one by one.  Maybe a LS mod would be meaningless if I just did one mission at a time.. but when I've got a lot of missions going all at once, I really don't want to have to keep track of how long they "should" survive.

If it bothers you that your Kerbals have to stay awake and active all the years it takes to get somewhere, there are 2 options.  In stock, just say they hibernate, go dormant, or whatever.  After all, they're aliens living in a universe whose physical laws have zero points of commonality with our own, so no telling how their physiology works.  Or you can freeze them with the DeepFreeze Continued mod.  Which, incidentally, removes their life support requirements while they're frozen, so again no gameplay impact due to using LS.

 

Quote

My own advice to @KocLobster is pretty much the same answer I'd give to anybody who's wondering "I'm thinking of playing with X, is it worth it?":  namely, give it a try, and if you like it, stick with it.    

Totally agree.

 

9 hours ago, numerobis said:

Personally I find immersion hard to maintain when I can, in one day of game-time (6 hours in simulation), design and launch several rockets; research all the way from tier 0 to tier 4; upgrade several facilities; and launch my first trip to a moon. Especially when contracts to test something on the launch pad have 5 to 10-year expiration dates. The whole time scale seems a bit messed up.

So change the difficulty settings when you start a new career.  Use a mod that makes construction take measurable time.  Pretty much all conceivable options are available either through stock settings or mods.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Geschosskopf

[FancyMouse]

Oh this becomes an LS discussion?

Then I just want to say this. Doing Hohmann transfer all the time is dull. LS gives me a fantastic reason to do more interesting transfers (considering trip time, or round-trip time, or arrival time - they are all different).

[Geschosskopf]

3 hours ago, FancyMouse said:

Oh this becomes an LS discussion?

That was my reaction, too.  What has this to do with time warp?

3 hours ago, FancyMouse said:

Then I just want to say this. Doing Hohmann transfer all the time is dull. LS gives me a fantastic reason to do more interesting transfers (considering trip time, or round-trip time, or arrival time - they are all different).

Hmmm.  I can't remember the last time I did a pure Hohmann transfer, ignoring the target's inclination before the mid-course tweak.  Maybe 0.20?  In any case, it was long ago, before I learned there were better options.

LS is not a thing unto itself.  It's just another resource (or several resources) that you have to toss into the pot in the design phase along with EC/sec, dV, and TWR.  The end result (unless you use massless Snacks!) is merely that you have to shove a higher mass out to wherever it is you want to go.  But that's really all there is to it.

[FancyMouse]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Hmmm.  I can't remember the last time I did a pure Hohmann transfer, ignoring the target's inclination before the mid-course tweak.  Maybe 0.20?  In any case, it was long ago, before I learned there were better options.

I was referring to picking the optimal transfer in TWP and execute that burn in general. Definition of Hohmann transfer isn't point of interest here.

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

LS is not a thing unto itself.  It's just another resource (or several resources) that you have to toss into the pot in the design phase along with EC/sec, dV, and TWR.  The end result (unless you use massless Snacks!) is merely that you have to shove a higher mass out to wherever it is you want to go.  But that's really all there is to it.

Nope that isn't how I played with LS. You don't have to treat it as just tossing extra mass for supply. You can do that, but that isn't fun (as you observed) and not most efficient. For example, if you do a usual optimal transfer from Kerbin to Duna during its first window, then you'll miss the window coming back and need to wait for a whole year or so. However if you're willing to pay about several hundreds of m/s extra fuel and proper aerocapture solution to arrive early, you can barely catch the returning window right away that saves 1.5 year of supply.

I can't speak for you, but I find playing like this is fun.

[Geschosskopf]

19 hours ago, FancyMouse said:

Nope that isn't how I played with LS. You don't have to treat it as just tossing extra mass for supply. You can do that, but that isn't fun (as you observed) and not most efficient. For example, if you do a usual optimal transfer from Kerbin to Duna during its first window, then you'll miss the window coming back and need to wait for a whole year or so. However if you're willing to pay about several hundreds of m/s extra fuel and proper aerocapture solution to arrive early, you can barely catch the returning window right away that saves 1.5 year of supply.

I utterly fail to see how this makes any difference whatsoever to the basic outline of playing with LS.  No matter how you decide to get from Point A to Point B and back again, the trip will require a certain amount of dV which you absolutely must build into the ship or else it will be physically incapable of doing the mission.  And no matter how you get there, the trip will take a certain amount of time, so you absolutely must figure that out in advance and put that much supplies into the ship or else the Kerbals will starve to death.

Sure, you can trade fuel mass for food mass like you say but the overall design process is the same:  determine mission parameters and build the ship needed to accomplish them..  No matter how you slice it, the only real effect of adding LS to your game is a heavier, more expensive ship.  Because you designed it to accomplish the mission, the Kerbals won't run out of food any more than they'll run out of fuel, so you never think about life support again after the design phase.

[KocLobster]

You're beating a dead horse and nobody cares. People will play with LS or they won't. What else is their to discuss You've made your opinion on LS very clear, and you don't seem to have anything else to add...

[wumpus]

Long time warps (waiting for interplanetary launch windows for example) probably have the biggest effect on contracts expiring.  If you have a science outpost, or mining colony, that will suddenly become wildly more powerful (in Earth time).  Obviously, if you plan on traveling only by launch windows, it would make sense to have such things in space already.  The stock game doesn't care, but presumably you could miss important (and rare) launch windows (think Voyager I/II) while zooming toward yet another Duna window.

One thing to remember about life support is that it will certainly make some rescue missions impossible.  Combine that with some sort of "real building time mod" (a long standing mod that makes building rockets take time) and rescue missions typically become impossible unless you have a "planetary rescue patrol" already in place (which generally will never work for any mission "where no kerbal has gone before").  I find rescue missions to be far more important to KSP than bothering to calculate and include specific life support packages, your delta-v may vary.

[KocLobster]

I finally ended a Duna mission last night, so I was able to get around to reinstalling my favorite LS mod. To each their own right? I don't think it's right to come down so hard (or at all) in how other people chose to play this awesome game.

[Kerbart]

1 minute ago, KocLobster said:

I finally ended a Duna mission last night, so I was able to get around to reinstalling my favorite LS mod. To each their own right? I don't think it's right to come down so hard (or at all) in how other people chose to play this awesome game.

The issue is not how you play it. The issue is that we fail to see how LS should limit you from excessive warping. Pack enough life support and you can still warp three years through a mission. On the other hand, I never warp for more than a couple of days at a time and somehow I don't need LS for that. That's the only thing that was really questioned as far as I was concerned.

By all means, do enjoy playing with life support.