Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla?

[HoloYolo]

Currently in the new Devnotes Thursday, there is a debate going on about the addition of life support to stock. There are some very good points, and if you want to check it out, go ahead.  But this is about that too. I have one question to ask. Should Life Support be stock?

Edited August 26, 2016 by HoloYolo

[Stargate525]

No.

Especially if they add it like they added mineral processing and currently have flight statistics.

Unless there is a way for me to see, in game, without manual calculation, the maximum flight time of the ship at the current loadouts in the VAB/SPH, you're only adding another layer of useless undocumented complexity.

[Crocket]

No.

KSP is a game about little green men flying around a solar system and using goo to gauge gravity. I don't think life support should be added.

[panzer1b]

I will have to say no unless it can be implemented without taking dev time away from actually important stuff like bug-fixing and optimization (which as of this moment are the only 2 things i truly care about in KSP development since the latest updates brought the amount of stock parts to the point that i can build almost anything, and for those rare things you cant make stock there is the robotics mod).

First of all, there is no real world reasoning behind kerbals even needing food.  They are green things (plant?) which dont look like nor simulate humans or animals on this planet, so why should we automatically assume they even need such a thing.  Its perfectly possible that their metabolism (assuming they even have one) is so slow that they can function for centuries without food, and that they obtain energy from something like sunlight.  Yeah its possible they need food, but until LS is actually made stock (if it ever is), there is no evidence that kerbals need to eat in the timeframes of missions (or even at all).

Second, LS puts a severe limitation upon the game that pretty much kills vast space programs (as in plenty of vessels everywhere).  For single missions, adding the component of length planning is fine and a challenge (trust me i have tried basic LS mods so i know how it works), but it becomes more tedious and annoying later in the game.  Having to babysit every single vessel (or base beyond kerbin) gets old very quickly, and not only that but it becomes virtually impossible to multitask to the point where you can really have any fun anymore when all you think about is sending supply ships.  Now some of you may say that many LS mods feature greenhouses and similar systems that allow 100% sustainable solutions, which is correct, but at that point it becomes a matter of increasing part counts just so your crew doesnt die after a while (which serves no purpose but limiting the size and scope of the vessels we can make that are sustainable).

Third, it is very very hard to balance LS between being pointless addition and annoyingly tedious.  If the LS is made so that resources drain extremely slowly (say a pod supports a crew for 10 years), then why even bother implementing it since most missions would be unaffected.  On the other hand, make it drain fast, and you need to spam supply ships which just ruins the fun of the game.

Finally, while many may disagree, i personally dont enjoy having a time dependent mechanic placed in KSP.  Refueling a ship that is out is something i have nothing against (and have even made some really cool looking refueling tankers for), since doing so is only required when i decide to actually do something with a vessel.  Given that i rarely like to focus on a mission alone (and like to launch many missions as windows come up, ect), i dont really want to have to babysit ships, only switch to them once i feel like using or interacting with em (err interacting may not be the best term, more like pitting em at war with each other).

I can see why some like it (makes KSP more like real life, challenging even if not my style challenge, more limitations), but its just not my cup of tea and is much rather have Squad spend their time doing something that matters far more and makes the game better for everyone (like bug fixing, some bugs have been here forever and still are in the game, and then there is stuff liek consoles not saving teh game...).

[regex]

Yes, and it should have a possible result of death if it runs out, like real spaceflight. I would welcome the additional detail in stock/vanilla.

[katateochi]

I think life support, especially if it's done realistically, would add too much overhead for the casual or new player and limit their ability to enjoy the experiences of interplanetary travel.  It also could turn the game into a frustrating maintenance operation (once you have lots of bases/stations established) you might be spending too much time just making sure everyone is fed and watered. Not only that but it also puts a limiter on some of the silly things some of us might do, like just sending a Kerbal in a command chair with an ion engine strapped to it on a GT (as an experiment in efficiency) or even just trying to circumnavigate Mun by rover. 

Having life support as part of stock but as an option that can be turned off is also not straightforward either; Do you want "is it cheating if you disable life support?" threads, because....yeah, we'll get tons of them. And those people who do feel that LS is too much for them and disable it will wind up feeling like they are taking the easy way or will feel (real or not) a pressure to play with it on. If it's a mod then that isn't the case.

If life support was to be added as a part of the stock game it would need to be very complete and extremely well balanced. It would need the facility to produce the LS resources while on mission, recycling of waste and most importantly (and this one is kinda complex to implement) the ability to define supply lines between places where you can produce resources and places where they're needed (otherwise as I said above, the game will turn into the Kerbal Shipping Program and you'll be spending all your time ferrying food about).  But I can't think how that would work well.

If it was added as stock it would need to be simple enough to not make the game impossible to new players. And then what's the point? When I play with LS it's because I want to add a significant extra challenge.  LS should be hard and as such I think it's best left as an optional add on (a mod if you will) so those who want it can add it.

edit- pretty much ninja'd by what @panzer1b said.

Edited August 26, 2016 by katateochi

[Spartwo]

I'd be in support of a very basic form of life support if it were a toggle-able difficulty option, much like comms will be in 1.2. I don't like the idea of limitations being forced on people without a way to turn it off.

[Frozen_Heart]

I think a limited version would work best, which works like electricity.

The life support resources (snacks or whatever you want to call it) would be consumed by kerbals at a constant pace, the same as how probes generate electricity. If they run out they don't die but rather hibernate until they can get more snacks.

The resource could both be stored (in cockpits, habitat modules, and special containers), and generated by large and bulky green house units (similar in size to the science lab or large ISRU)

 

I think this would meet the balance between fun and realism, while giving an actual downside to manned missions.

[Guest]

I think shere should be some consequence for leaving Kerbals stranded, beyond simply not having access to them for other missions. Doing LS like how Snacks! does is I feel most in the stockalike spirit of things (one resource and they don't die, just become unproductive). I'd like to see the number of official mods expanded to include complex features like LS that may be too much or just unfun for some (read: most) players, but since modders do these things anyway and to a high standard, all an official mod really does is slap an 'official' label on for the few people who are caught up with the the idea of "mods are cheating". Ultimately I would say nothing 'should' be stock, and everyone is free to change what they don't like about the base game for their own enjoyment.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Guest

[Spartwo]

And a downside is needed to counter the info that kerballed ships won't require a comms link to work properly.

[Superfluous J]

I am very torn on this. I've tried several life support mods and have enjoyed none of them. Some of them seemed promising, but in the end I just never enjoyed the experience. Now the same could be said for ISRU and remote telemetry limits, and I am very happy with the stock implementation of ISRU* and the stock telemetry implementation seems like it'll be similarly enjoyable. So, it's very possible that Squad will somehow be able to make a life support system that I actually like.

So I'm not voting.

*It's not without it's issues, sure, but it's still my favorite of all the ISRU systems I've tried, and as far as I know I've tried them all.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

LS is a can of worms (both figuratively and I suppose it could be literally ), I think it would be a really hard thing to do right and by right I mean that more than 10% of players would enjoy. For most the system would be too easy or too hard, the sweet spot would be tough to find.

 

* I always felt that having more proper habitats is more important than having LS, it seems like people care about their Kerbals in a purely fantasy way- they want company for them, they want to have extra room for them, etc. These sorts of self imposed rules make the game fun for people, I think having more developed habitats would add more immersion without the extra managing required of LS systems.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Waxing_Kibbous

[Mjp1050]

21 minutes ago, regex said:

Yes, and it should have a possible result of death if it runs out, like real spaceflight. I would welcome the additional detail in stock/vanilla.

What? No! There are plenty of ways to directly kill Kerbals. Having them die by leaving them alone is an awful idea.

I'm opposed to this because I don't want to worry while I'm playing the game. There shouldn't be consequences for not installing KAC and not restocking your base on time.

[Just Jim]

I think my biggest concern would be adding it to existing games.

If it was added to an existing game where some of the Kerbals were already in space, and couldn't get back in time no matter what, would they die?

[Snark]

I like the idea of LS.  It can make things interesting.  It can also make things tedious.

I have played career games without LS, and enjoyed the heck out of them, including doing some fun stuff that would have been problematic if LS were there.

I have also played career games with LS, and enjoyed the heck out of them, and had fun designing around the challenges that it entails.

I think the complexity can be fun... for someone who happens to like that complexity, and be in the mood for it.

So my take on "should LS be stock" is basically this:

• I'd love to see it in stock.
• If it's there, it absolutely must be capable to toggle it off as a difficulty setting.  (Much like the comms going into 1.2.)
• That said... although I'd like to have it in stock, it's not necessarily a super high priority.  There are other things I'd like to have in stock before LS.  Additional planets, to take just one example.  So, yes, add it please... but it can wait for a later release.

A suggestion to @HoloYolo about the survey options-- might be handy to to have three options.  Instead of just "yes" and "no", could be:

• Yes, ASAP!
• Eventually, maybe
• No, never

 

[regex]

5 minutes ago, Mjp1050 said:

What? No! There are plenty of ways to directly kill Kerbals. Having them die by leaving them alone is an awful idea.

I'm opposed to this because I don't want to worry while I'm playing the game. There shouldn't be consequences for not installing KAC and not restocking your base on time.

vOv That's how I like to play.

[HoloYolo]

Just now, Snark said:

I like the idea of LS.  It can make things interesting.  It can also make things tedious.

I have played career games without LS, and enjoyed the heck out of them, including doing some fun stuff that would have been problematic if LS were there.

I have also played career games with LS, and enjoyed the heck out of them, and had fun designing around the challenges that it entails.

I think the complexity can be fun... for someone who happens to like that complexity, and be in the mood for it.

So my take on "should LS be stock" is basically this:

• I'd love to see it in stock.
• If it's there, it absolutely must be capable to toggle it off as a difficulty setting.  (Much like the comms going into 1.2.)
• That said... although I'd like to have it in stock, it's not necessarily a super high priority.  There are other things I'd like to have in stock before LS.  Additional planets, to take just one example.  So, yes, add it please... but it can wait for a later release.

A suggestion to @HoloYolo about the survey options-- might be handy to to have three options.  Instead of just "yes" and "no", could be:

• Yes, ASAP!
• Eventually, maybe
• No, never

 

I'll get on that, mud. Should be fixed soon.

I also forgot to share my opinion on the subject. I do not think LS should be stock. It would a hard game for beginners even harder, and it would be a save ruiner for the most part. 

[Alshain]

Honestly the biggest issue is there are so many mods that do this and all of them different.  If Squad were to choose just one, or even make their own, then you would still have a huge portion of the community unhappy.  Those that don't want LS in-game will be unhappy, those that used one of the multiple mods Squad didn't implement will be unhappy.  There is no possible way Squad could win on this.  Their best bet is to leave it alone.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Alshain

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

NO! NEVER!

[W. Kerman]

Optional? Some would love, and others would hate.

[RocketSquid]

I vote no, supply missions are the most tedious thing in existence and death by mis-warp would be super annoying.

[Andem]

Yes. @RoverDude's LS system is nearly perfect (IMO), and the only things that would bog it down is tweaks designed for MKS.

43 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Honestly the biggest issue is there are so many mods that do this and all of them different.  If Squad were to choose just one, or even make their own, then you would still have a huge portion of the community unhappy.  Those that don't want LS in-game will be unhappy, those that used one of the multiple mods Squad didn't implement will be unhappy.  There is no possible way Squad could win on this.  Their best bet is to leave it alone.

Is that why everyone still complains about reentry heating being made stock? Is that why everyone is still in a fuss about stock aerodynamics?

[Alshain]

17 minutes ago, Andem said:

Is that why everyone still complains about reentry heating being made stock? Is that why everyone is still in a fuss about stock aerodynamics?

There was only one mod for both of those and the end results were very much like their respective mods (keeping in mind FAR evolved afterward, so it's no longer the same FAR as it was).

Life support there are at least 4 major mods and several smaller ones.  Now lets just take those 4, add a 5th option... no life support at all.  Lets assume for a minute there is an even split of users (this likely isn't the case, but it's fine for this example).  That means at best you get 20% of players that will appreciate the end result and the other 80% will want either a different implementation or nothing at all.  Again, there is no victory in Squad implementing life support.  Regardless of what they add, the majority will be unhappy for one reason or another.

[Firemetal]

I would like it to be a difficulty option as said in the posts above.

[Aragosnat]

Only if it is optional and can be toggled on or off. As well start in the defualt off for those that want to keep playing their save without Kerbals dropping like flies unexpectidly. Otherwise I would be intrested in seeing what Dquad comes up with. As I have always wanted to try the mods out. But, with the game developing as it had in the past. I kept puttign it off.