Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla?

[lrd.Helmet]

Definitely not. Resupply missions would become very tedious after a while.

And when it would be optional, I'm one of those guys who feel like missing out because I selected 'no life support' in the pre-game settings. And then I would select 'life support active', which would probably end in me never ever playing the game again and also not recommending it to somebody else. Simply because Life support made the game too tedious, boring and repetitive. 

I see KSP as a sandbox in which I can do whatever I want as long as it conforms to physics. Which is a lot of fun, but when I have to start managing my kerbals like they are dumb sims people I'd get bored after 2-3 hours.

[tater]

Yes, it should absolutely be stock. Time limits make a huge difference in any spaceflight with crew. It is fundamentally different.

The game would need more robust mission planning, however. That or a system like Roverdude's that just makes them tourists after they run out (no contract rescue missions, in other words).

 

@panzer1b, even photosynthesis requires raw materials. 

1 hour ago, lrd.Helmet said:

Definitely not. Resupply missions would become very tedious after a while.

And when it would be optional, I'm one of those guys who feel like missing out because I selected 'no life support' in the pre-game settings. And then I would select 'life support active', which would probably end in me never ever playing the game again and also not recommending it to somebody else. Simply because Life support made the game too tedious, boring and repetitive. 

I see KSP as a sandbox in which I can do whatever I want as long as it conforms to physics. Which is a lot of fun, but when I have to start managing my kerbals like they are dumb sims people I'd get bored after 2-3 hours.

This is a non-argument. You could play with LS not on. Managing them like sims? You need to simply make slightly more realistic craft. Done.

Edited August 26, 2016 by tater

[Ultimate Steve]

Everything stated above.

One more point: After the update drops, every Kerbal in every obscure planetary station in every save file of every user would die simultaneously due to lack of supplies and no way to get them to them. Everybody's saves would break.

[Snark]

3 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Everything stated above.

One more point: After the update drops, every Kerbal in every obscure planetary station in every save file of every user would die simultaneously due to lack of supplies and no way to get them to them. Everybody's saves would break.

Why is that? As long as the feature is made to be toggleable, the simple and obvious implementation choice for pre-existing careers would be that they have it turned off. Wouldn't break anything.

[Nerfclasher]

Why not have life support in procedure containers so you could stick them inside service module and maybe have service model tanks shells to make it more Lego like 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Nerfclasher

[lrd.Helmet]

17 minutes ago, tater said:

This is a noon-argument. You could play with LS not on. Managing them like sims? You need to simply make slightly more realistic craft. Done.

And where would be the challenge in that? If you put it that way it wouldn't matter wether or not I add that extra dv or not.

edit: whether it is a non-argument? what? The entire discussion is about what specific people want or don't want. None of this is factual...

Edited August 26, 2016 by lrd.Helmet

[AlamoVampire]

i honestly do not care one way or another. it would fun to give it a whirl, but, honestly, makes no difference. toggle it on or off as an option and im happy. 

[Andem]

45 minutes ago, Alshain said:

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.

You've clearly missed my point. People aren't complaining about the changes anymore. People will feign discomfort and outrage until they either A) Get used to the stock version, or B) KEEP USING A DAMN MOD.

8 minutes ago, lrd.Helmet said:

And where would be the challenge in that? If you put it that way it wouldn't matter wether or not I add that extra dv or not.

edit: whether it is a non-argument? what? The entire discussion is about what specific people want or don't want. None of this is factual...

Really? You can't have your cake and eat it too, mate. 

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, Andem said:

You've clearly missed my point. People aren't complaining about the changes anymore. People will feign discomfort and outrage until they either A) Get used to the stock version, or B) KEEP USING A DAMN MOD.

Excellent.  Then I guess they can keep using a life support mod.  No need to put it in stock, glad we agree!

 

With that, I'm out for the night!

Edited August 26, 2016 by Alshain

[lrd.Helmet]

8 minutes ago, Andem said:

You've clearly missed my point. People aren't complaining about the changes anymore. People will feign discomfort and outrage until they either A) Get used to the stock version, or B) KEEP USING A DAMN MOD.

This sounds a lot like "I'm just going to do what people don't want me to do whether they like it or not. Because in the end they will get used to it any way.".

8 minutes ago, Andem said:

Really? You can't have your cake and eat it too, mate. 

Sorry, but I honestly don't get what you're saying. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by lrd.Helmet
I'm an ass. and probably still am

[Talos]

It would add an interesting element to the game. But right now, we have multiple life support mods. As far as a vanilla experience, I doubt life support would really be needed. If you want it, there's several mods that will satisfy you.

[Andem]

5 minutes ago, Alshain said:

Excellent.  Then I guess they can keep using a life support mod.  No need to put it in stock, glad we agree!

 

With that, I'm out for the night!

We might as well not even have a game. Just release an engine and let modders do all the work. And you can't call strawman now, this is just taking your logic and applying it to similar issues.

 

6 minutes ago, lrd.Helmet said:

According to this poll, the majority doesn't want it. So uhm yeah. This sounds a lot like "I'm just going to do what people don't want me to do whether they like it or not. Because in the end they will get used to it any way.".

Sorry, but I honestly don't get what you're saying. 

Is English your first language? I think I have to know that before proceeding. And polls are, quite frankly, worth jack excrements with such a small sample size.

[Mjp1050]

See how divided the community is on this? Regardless of if or how LS is implemented, a significant fraction will not like it. 

Something this controversial should definitely be left to the modders. SQUAD would get nothing but criticism and hate if they tried to add life support at this point.

[Stargate525]

1 hour 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.

You could have said the exact same thing about ISRU, multiplayer, spaceplanes, orbital mapping, and telecomms. In the case where they didn't simply purchase the mod for assimilation, the version they implemented (or plan to implement) was similar enough to the original that, were this game Youtube, they'd have been hit with copyright strikes.

[Andem]

3 minutes ago, Stargate525 said:

You could have said the exact same thing about ISRU, multiplayer, spaceplanes, orbital mapping, and telecomms. In the case where they didn't simply purchase the mod for assimilation, the version they implemented (or plan to implement) was similar enough to the original that, were this game Youtube, they'd have been hit with copyright strikes.

To quote from the Devnote thread:

11 minutes ago, Andem said:

You can't please everyone. That isn't the point, the point is making a system that fits well with stock mechanics. USILS does that quite well.

[AlamoVampire]

17 minutes ago, Mjp1050 said:

See how divided the community is on this? Regardless of if or how LS is implemented, a significant fraction will not like it. 

Something this controversial should definitely be left to the modders. SQUAD would get nothing but criticism and hate if they tried to add life support at this point.

the same can be said for multiplayer, and yet they are going to at some point give us multiplayer, so why should life support be any different? seems like regardless of what the players want or do not want, whats going to come will come. Multiplayer as an example is perfectly fine as a mod, lets those who want it get it and those of us who dont, dont get the mod. BUT, when it does get implemented <hopefully years from now> its going to be assets in the game that some of us will never make use of, that we will be unable to remove ourselves and wheres the fun or fairness in that? its like having a meal at some fancy restaurant and whether you wanted it or not, you get a bottle of wine with your meal. You dont drink said wine, but, that bottle is on your bill, you paid for it, but, now what?  IF LS is to remain a mod, then by gum multiplayer should to. heck, there has been a major demand for mechjeb or some form of autopilot to get implemented and yet, nothing of the sort has happened. with sarbian on team now AND the new kerbnet thing one would think this game kinda would need it <autopilot> now. 

See how this can just go on and on and on like that certain song that never ends or the debates of is mechjeb cheating or not?

Edited August 26, 2016 by AlamoVampire
wouldnt you like to know? mwuhahaha

[tater]

57 minutes ago, lrd.Helmet said:

And where would be the challenge in that? If you put it that way it wouldn't matter wether or not I add that extra dv or not.

edit: whether it is a non-argument? what? The entire discussion is about what specific people want or don't want. None of this is factual...

It would be a toggle, hence a non-argument (thanks for not pointing out my typo, BTW  ).

Also, it's a non-issue in sandbox (again, a toggle). If it were the USI-LS type, default would be to not kill, but you can turn death on as well, so it effectively adds 3 options to stock.

1. As it is now (LS toggled off)

2. USILS default (doesn't kill, merely disables crew, who can then be rescued

3. USILS with Death=True.

For it to be "vanilla" as per OP, I'd assume the USILS default would be the stock version, with an option to turn it off, or turn it up. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by tater

[foamyesque]

Life support certainly should be added, because -- like actual aerodynamics and reentry -- it allows for a wider variety of difficult curves. You can keep the early game processes exactly the same and only gradually introduce the complexities of LS for longer missions. For example it will contribute a goodly amount to making interplanetary missions actually harder than going to the Mun.

[tater]

1 minute ago, foamyesque said:

Life support certainly should be added, because -- like actual aerodynamics and reentry -- it allows for a wider variety of difficult curves. You can keep the early game processes exactly the same and only gradually introduce the complexities of LS for longer missions. For example it will contribute a goodly amount to making interplanetary missions actually harder than going to the Mun.

This.

Note that USI-LS (seems like the best example since Roverdude is a dev) gives a 15 day grace period for all crew pods with no LS stuff added. That basically makes Kerbin SoI stuff "stock." Apparently the vast majority of players never leave kerbin SoI, so the vast majority would be unaffected except for bases. Those can easily be supplied. Farther missions require bigger ships, or perhaps sending ahead supplies.

 

[James Kerman]

I support both sides of the argument for these reasons - Beginners with no understanding of orbital mechanics (as I used to be) have a steep enough learning curve without having their crew die of starvation on their first flight to Duna.  Most veterans are using house rules to make the game more difficult and life support can help this.

If it could be implemented as a Game Mode (sandbox, science, career, hardcore mode) I think most people would be happy and not conflicted by turning off such a feature in any other game mode.

[Alchemist]

There's the fact that LKO, Minmus (with Mun kind of inbetween) and interplanetary (as well as any long-term installations) surely are 3 totally different kinds of mission duration altogether.

I'd say that to get it in line with stock gameplay, we'll need couple levels of recycling system:
0) without it crew pods will have supplies just for a few days (additional supply storage can be added to extend it). OK for short-duration missions, including small landers detaching from the mothership.
1) lower level recycling stuff reduces supply consumption several times by adding a not too heavy module. Useful for mid-term missions you are going to keep in mind for all the duration. Can also work for an early station or munbase you will visit once in a while
1a) maybe ISRU could also help with refilling life support resources (oxygen is definitely something you can mine and convert). May make surface bases autonomous and allow landers to resupply stations/motherships
2) high level recycling would give the station/base/mothership complete of near-complete autonomy. But it may be a bit heavy and power-hungry.
 

With something of this kind I would like having it in stock. Anything requiring constant resupply of everything will just give people another reason to stick to Kerbin SoI (as if finances being totally more efficient in-game time wise due to shorter mission durations aren't enough!)

Edited August 26, 2016 by Alchemist

[Superfluous J]

Also, any LS system will almost require an in-game, user-friendly way to estimate mission duration. And probably in-mission notifications when you're not likely to hit milestones.

As I don't see that happening any time soon if at all, I'm now comfortable voting 'no' to this poll.

[pandaman]

Yes, I think there should be a stock implementation of life support.

But it MUST be toggleable (although I see no reason why it wouldn't be anyway), and ideally have 'severity' settings like 'death', 'Hibernation' etc. for when the food runs out.

KSP does a good job of introducing the complexities and considerations of space exploration in a relatively simple, and fun way.  And Life Support is a 'really big' issue, so its absolutely right that it gets represented in some way (and I'm talking of 'representation' here, not absolute 'realism'). If humans had the constitution and LS requirements of current stock Kerbals they would have sent men to Mars and beyond a long time ago.

However, any stock system should IMO be pretty simple, and approached in a similar way to the ISRU system, like having a single 'supplies' resource (food, water etc) and then also using EC to operate the air con/filtration stuff.  Additional things like greenhouses to grow more supplies and habitation modules would also add extra depth without adding too much complexity and too many extra parts.  Crew morale/effectiveness could also be factored in as an optional extra 'layer' to introduce 'living space' type considerations too.

Another important gameplay consideration though, is that it ideally also needs to be 'worth' sending crewed missions over probes, apart from the obvious 'just cause it's fun' argument.  Some contracts could require it, but maybe it needs something a bit more than that.

For those that want extra levels of realism then mods will always be there (on PC anyway).  And for those that don't, just turn the settings down or switch it off.

 

[Laie]

I've recently had a close look at TACLS for RealismOverhaul and am with @panzer1b and @katateochi: doing life support "right" is hard, and way beyond the scope of stock KSP.

For all practical purposes, all life support does is adding extra mass; you could probably fake it by simply having a single resource, "supplies" (or maybe "snacks" because tradition). I could like that, it would certainly give a good hint about why going to Duna or Jool is way more ambitious than a munar landing, but I don't think such a simple system would be met with much excitement. OTOH, if you want to break it down to food/water/clothes/other it adds a host of complexities that would not make the game any better. Even more so if you also want recyclers or generators for every resource.

[Mastikator]

If life support means just food then no, if it means stress, radiation, oxygen and food and is toggleable and default set to off in sandbox (and on in career with hibernation for medium and death for hard). Then yes.