Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla?

[r4pt0r]

I would like a simple system myself. Just "snacks".

A few holding tanks, probably similar to the  the rcs tanks. Kerbals are not humans, so starvation results in "sleeping/hibernating" and can be rescued no matter what. "Snacks" can be generated over time with electricity and a greenhouse module, similar in size to either the 2 person lab, or hitchhiker. Command modules have enough snacks for 4 weeks. 

 

That would be my ideal default. Casual enough to still appeal to the broad ksp audience. Could be made harder with settings, or mods.

[Sereneti]

8 hours ago, HoloYolo said:

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?

Maybe...

Yes, it is more realistic.
No: Dronecores are already overpowered.

hm...
Maybe a switch in the "game-start" menü: if someone dissable LS they dont have acces to the LS parts. (and dont need it)


 

[Frozen_Heart]

Seems pretty clear from the poll that most people don't want it. :/ I find that odd as no one complained about electricity when it arrived, and it could easily work the same as that.

[katateochi]

5 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

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?

I don't think it's the same, because with multiplayer if you don't want any part of it you can just ignore it without any change to your single player game. 

10 minutes ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Seems pretty clear from the poll that most people don't want it. :/ I find that odd as no one complained about electricity when it arrived, and it could easily work the same as that.

Electricity is just a single resource and a very easy one to gain while on mission.  If life support was implemented as simply it would be basically pointless. And done realistically then it has the potential to make the game much harder.  With electricity on a station you don't have to constantly run re-supply missions to keep it powered, but with LS and a complex space program it could turn the game into a tedious resupply operation. Or we get some magic part that can conjure up all the LS resources and you just strap that to a station, but then that's too simple and realism goes right out the airlock. 
Getting the right balance would be very hard and i'd rather see the devs focus on other aspects. 

 

[-DDD-]

IMHO it would be only an other wall to manned mission in career

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

We have enough trouble with Isp, dV , TWR CoM, CoT, and CoL. 

Kerbals die frequently enough in humorous explosions. I don't think having them die of apoxia or starvation would be "fun"

[Sharpy]

Life Support should be stock and tweakable on New Game. Easy - none. Medium - Snacks. Hard - full. Custom - pick as you like.

[klgraham1013]

Yes.  Now I'll walk away from this thread while I still can.

Edited August 26, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Red Iron Crown]

Suggestion for the stock game moved to Suggestions and Development Discussion.

[Pthigrivi]

I think it's something that should take some thought to get right but would be a really valuable addition. Agreed with others that it should be a single resource and one that's relatively easy to manage, especially at first. Later the need for resupply runs could be aliviated by recyclers, greenhouses and IRSU. I actually think USI LS is basically ready for stock. It be nice if the UI displayed   LS countdowns factoring greenhouses and if you could mine fertilizer somehow but I have few other complaints. 

Just FYI for people who want to discuss how LS could work there's a thread in the frequent suggestions list. 

Edit: ninja'd^

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Frozen_Heart]

1 hour ago, katateochi said:

Electricity is just a single resource and a very easy one to gain while on mission.  If life support was implemented as simply it would be basically pointless. And done realistically then it has the potential to make the game much harder.  With electricity on a station you don't have to constantly run re-supply missions to keep it powered, but with LS and a complex space program it could turn the game into a tedious resupply operation. Or we get some magic part that can conjure up all the LS resources and you just strap that to a station, but then that's too simple and realism goes right out the airlock. 
Getting the right balance would be very hard and i'd rather see the devs focus on other aspects. 

 

It should both be toggleable and a single 'consumables' resource, that way it is both represented in game but easy enough for anyone to use and lenient.

And if you didn't want to use it just turn it off. (for that matter I think electricity should be toggleable as well)

[Wjolcz]

I was about to make some sort of food pun, but I see the poll creator has already taken care of that.

Anyway, if LS is ever going to be a thing it should be as simple as possible

-One "Supplies" resource

-Every part that can have crew should also be able to store "Supplies"

-EC usage depends on the amount of Kerbals on board (heat)

-Greenhouse part that generates "Supplies" for EC (maybe it should work for X years unless there's "Ore" on board; a nice way to close the loop on the ground. Would also give more meaning to bases)

I know it's magical alchemy, but IMO it should be kept as simple as possible. After all, we don't know what these green creatures eat, right?

Edited August 26, 2016 by Veeltch

[Curveball Anders]

I'd like to answer "yes, if it was optional".

The problem is that I know that every optional feature added to a game (or any software) adds complexity, makes QA harder and slows down development for all users, not just the ones who opts to enable the function.

That's why mods is a better way to implement some things instead of adding them to stock (and I apologize to the console users).

[Andem]

How about we reframe this discussion? Instead of just trying to shut down the idea of LS and make the people who want it shut up, could we maybe change to Why don't you think that it's fun, and What could change to make it more fun? I think that would probably lead to an actual discussion rather than two sides yelling at one another because one preference shouldn't have the right to exist for everyone.

[Magzimum]

tl;dr: Yes, I am in favor. But only extra parts needed for interplanetary missions.

I would be in favor of it, on the condition that only the interplanetary missions (and independently operating) space stations would be in need of additional life support units. The stock capsules should already have some life support. E.g. the Mk1 has life support for 5 days, the Mk1-2 for 2 months (heavy as it is), and the Hitchhiker compartment should have supplies for 6 months (since it offers almost nothing except life support)... Then newbies can still launch missions to LKO, the Mun and Minmus, but interplanetary missions require a little extra. Space stations can optionally be independent, or receive supplies from Kerbin several times per year.

Life support should be quite simple: just air and snacks. At low tech tree, we should be able to bring extra supplies of both: snacks and pressurized air. At higher tech tree we should be able to generate our own: Air can be supplied by a very simple unit, that requires only electricity. The food unit is essentially a large greenhouse, it is for example twice the length of the R&D lab (but not necessarily as heavy), with quite high electricity demands for lamps. At even higher tech tree we may get larger units of both (the greenhouse something the size of the largest Mk3 fuel tanks?), to make it easier to create the larger space stations and motherships.

Personally, I find it quite unrealistic that you can leave a Kerbal in space indefinitely. I already compensate this by always sending multiple Kerbals on long missions (even if I don't need them), and by frequently adding more crew compartments than I need for my Kerbals. For example, many of my creations have extra cupolas and hitchhiker compartments that are empty on launch.

Yes, that means that drones are even more "overpowered", and it "nerfs" the long distance manned Kerballed missions. And I find that quite realistic, and don't mind at all.

 

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

IMHO (obviously) as I read in someone's sig: "Death is a pretty heavy concept to add to a kid's lego spaceship building game."  which in itself true. But apoxia, starvation and hypothermia, are some the worst ways to die. Seriously, shooting yourself is a better option. Do you want to give them a gun too? (I'd want one) I want to play a stock game on hard, but I don't want to have to worry about that.

Think about it, do you really want some 6 year old laying in bed worrying that thanks to him Jeb is going to suffocate? EDIT: Or this question (which will come up) Should one crew member kill himself so the others can live? - come on that NOT FUN!

Making them Kerbals (and not people) and removing LS from the equation are two of the best decisions the devs made.

Add it as a Mod, feel free.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Brainlord Mesomorph

[Wjolcz]

Awww man. By voting on the third option I feel like I wasted my vote. But I think it should be optional. Seems not everyone likes it.

[Magzimum]

2 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Awww man. By voting on the third option I feel like I wasted my vote. But I think it should be optional. Seems not everyone likes it.

Yeah, making it optional (make it part of the difficulty level) is probably the way to go.

Seeing as people like @Brainlord Mesomorph bringing up the "but think of the children" argument, it appears that this is a sensitive issue (more so than I perhaps thought earlier). If I may address the issue of 6-year-olds playing this game:  Personally, I think the "but think of the children" argument is complete rubbish. Kids kill characters in games all the time. Also, they can kill Jeb in this game in many other ways already. It makes no difference if the stock game adds just one additional way to not make it home for the Kerbals.

[Andem]

10 minutes ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

IMHO (obviously) as I read in someone's sig: "Death is a pretty heavy concept to add to a kid's lego spaceship building game."  which in itself true. But apoxia, starvation and hypothermia, are some the worst ways to die. Seriously, shooting yourself is a better option. Do you want to give them a gun too? (I'd want one) I want to play a stock game on hard, but I don't want to have to worry about that.

Think about it, do you really want some 6 year old laying in bed worrying that thanks to him Jeb is going to suffocate? EDIT: Or this question (which will come up) Should one crew member kill himself so the others can live? - come on that NOT FUN!

Making them Kerbals (and not people) and removing LS from the equation are two of the best decisions the devs made.

Add it as a Mod, feel free.

Really?

You are talking about things that are completely, 150% out of the games scope. Don't make this discussion something that it isn't.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

1 minute ago, Magzimum said:

bringing up the "but think of the children" argument, it appears that this is a sensitive issue (more so than I perhaps thought earlier). If I may address the issue of 6-year-olds playing this game:  Personally, I think the "but think of the children" argument is complete rubbish.

actually, I didn't realize I was doing that, and I usually agree w/ your point. But I don't want have to decide whether Bill should go on an endless spacewalk so that Jeb can live.

[cfds]

9 hours ago, Andem said:

We might as well not even have a game. Just release an engine and let modders do all the work.

That would actually be great. I do not like the current implementation of ISRU (magic ore athet can turn into everything without mass loss, magic refinery that creates free energy), but the framework is easily modable by just changing configs. But I fear that this example will remain the exception...

[r4pt0r]

4 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Awww man. By voting on the third option I feel like I wasted my vote. But I think it should be optional. Seems not everyone likes it.

Voting for the 3rd option is not a wasted vote



I think most of the "against" group can be broken down these main ways:

-I dont want to waste time on boring station resupply missions that are just rendezvous and repeat over and over.
-I dont want my kerbals at X to die, because I just spent a 3 years timewarping and returning a different mission from Y (I start and finish my missions in 1 sitting, and that may take over 2+ years in warp).
-This game is already hard, dont make it harder please.

All perfectly valid complaints, any other reasons?


 

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

Just now, Andem said:

You are talking about things that are completely, 150% out of the games scope. Don't make this discussion something that it isn't.

If I have 5 days of air for 2 people and 10 days to go, do you kill them both??

[ShotgunNinja]

2 hours ago, Brainlord Mesomorph said:

Kerbals die frequently enough in humorous explosions. I don't think having them die of apoxia or starvation would be "fun"

The 'fun' is in the engineering to avoid that. In my opinion this is a game about engineering. 'Fun' is difficult to define, but we can say it is about understanding mechanics, and end when these have been mastered completely. So adding limits increase 'fun', as without boundaries creativity became pointless.

A good read: Theory of fun in game design

Edited August 26, 2016 by ShotgunNinja

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

hmmm, I would appear to be in the minority, (although the poll results say otherwise).

gtg guys