Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla?

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

Except what you want is not the last option what you want is "The game comes with an LS implementation that a small fraction of players want, 

If I seem to be harping it's because of this specific point. You have no evidence whatsoever that this is true. You just admitted as much two posts ago. It's especially silly concidering what evidence we do have, however flawed, strongly implies the opposite is true. If you're actually interested in answering specific questions like what type of LS would people like to see if any or what percentage of people who answered 'maybe' do want LS but have caveats or what percentage of people are fine with it so long as it has a toggle go back and read the thread. You don't need a professionally weighted poll to figure out the answer. You can't simultaneously ignore near unanimous sentiments on questions like these and just assert that your lack of interest in paying attention is evidence that few people want LS. 

[Alshain]

6 hours ago, tater said:

Except the most likely candidate was already done by RoverDude, and won't take any dev time to speak of.

I could just as well say, "The game comes with an aerodynamics implementation that a small fraction of players want, if it isn't what you want turn it of and download a mod." So you want the soup back, since we all DL FAR, anyway?

Really? Because RoverDude implemented the resource system and when he did it took a significant effort, despite having Karbonite fully developed at the time.

Given the three options at the time aerodynamics would fall even higher statistically.  The current aero package is very close to what FAR was at the time it was implemented (though not current versions of FAR).  So there you have two options, the Soup-o-sphere and FAR, that was a 50% split.

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

If I seem to be harping it's because of this specific point. You have no evidence whatsoever that this is true. You just admitted as much two posts ago. It's especially silly concidering what evidence we do have, however flawed, strongly implies the opposite is true. If you're actually interested in answering specific questions like what type of LS would people like to see if any or what percentage of people who answered 'maybe' do want LS but have caveats or what percentage of people are fine with it so long as it has a toggle go back and read the thread. You don't need a professionally weighted poll to figure out the answer. You can't simultaneously ignore near unanimous sentiments on questions like these and just assert that your lack of interest in paying attention is evidence that few people want LS. 

I never admitted anything of the sort.  You have no evidence whatsoever that it is not true.  I have probabilities.  I can make a completely unanimous selection of people that say LS should never be added, that doesn't mean it is an accurate representation.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Alshain

[tater]

So the entirety of the argument is that RoverDude could instead work on something else... like what? You need to also consider that he, himself thought LS was important enough to do already, when a few other mods also addressed it. Seems like a non-argument.

 

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, tater said:

So the entirety of the argument is that RoverDude could instead work on something else... like what? You need to also consider that he, himself thought LS was important enough to do already, when a few other mods also addressed it. Seems like a non-argument.

 

It seems like any argument that you don't agree with is a non-argument.  My points are valid, you not agreeing with them doesn't make them a 'non-argument'.

[Pthigrivi]

9 hours ago, Alshain said:

It's not worthless, it's just not enough for statistical analysis.

You did, though you don't seem to know it. You have an N of zero. You can't base probabilities on lack of evidence. By your method you could conjure an infinite number of potential answers to satisfy whatever answer you desire. Your assertion that few people are interested in LS is based on exactly nothing, and would seem to go wildly against the strong response to this thread. At least I've paid attention to this conversation and dozens like it over the years. If you had done the same you might not have all the information, but you would at least know more than nothing. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Pthigrivi

[Alshain]

21 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

You can't base probabilities on lack of evidence.

You sure can.  If you didn't have a lack of evidence you wouldn't need a probability.

[Andem]

17 hours ago, Alshain said:

There are way more than two basic camps.  There is at least a camp for every life support mod there is and one for those who want no life support.  No matter what life support squad implements the majority of players will not like it because they either don't want one or it isn't like the one they use.  Squad would be wasting their time even trying for a very small minority of players that would actually use it. The poll in the thread here is very biassed for example, it lumps together all the various life support mods implementations and assumes they are equal, when they are not.

The thing is, configurability allows all of the people, regardless of their camp, to be at least somewhat happy.

15 hours ago, Alshain said:

Not quite what I meant.  With Multiplayer you have 2 options, DMP or nothing.  That means if you were to assume perfect proportions you have 50% of the players.  How about antenna systems, you have Nothing, AntennaRange, and RemoteTech, so that's even split 33% and it looks like Squad is going with a slightly enhanced antenna range so that means 66% will either be turning it off or using a mod in it's place.  The same was true of Resources, 33%... nothing, Kethane or Karbonite.

I don't think you can say that and be taken seriously without actually polling everyone. I highly doubt that 100% or even 75% of the players that used deadly reentry still do, or at least not frequently. I hold the same (if not lower percentages) of Kethane.

8 hours ago, Alshain said:

Except what you want is not the last option what you want is "The game comes with an LS implementation that a small fraction of players want, if it isn't what you want turn it of and download a mod."

In most cases, that option is almost synonymous with the first option and yet it will undoubtedly take up a lot of development time that could be used elsewhere.

Again, configurability solves this issue.

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

It seems like any argument that you don't agree with is a non-argument.  My points are valid, you not agreeing with them doesn't make them a 'non-argument'.

The points are valid when you continue to disregard posts pointing out that the issue you would have is easily fixable.

[Pthigrivi]

9 minutes ago, Alshain said:

You sure can.  If you didn't have a lack of evidence you wouldn't need a probability.

You're not following. Your probabilities reflect only the the number of poll options you've arbitrarily chosen. There is exactly nothing about them that represents reality. They are utterly meaningless. 

[Diche Bach]

Games that give users more options are generally better than games that give users less options . . . right up to the point that the effect of giving more options causes the game to be experienced as "more complicated" instead of "more immersive/rich."

Fella over on the Stellaris forums opined quite eloquently about this issue in a similar discussion pertaining to whether Paradox should include a particular featre in an update to the game as an toggleable option or not (actually it might have been food transport between planets! ).

When a user launches an app and is greeted with a bewildering if-not overwhelming display of obscure controls, buttons, knobs and valves = giving user more options has not served well.

When a user launches an app and is greeted by a welcoming, cognitively-intuitive, seemingly-straightforwad at first glance UI, which . . . on further examination by user action turns out to reveal even more "goodies" under the hood that the user can play with _IF_ he or she wants to = giving user more options can serve well.

It is about UI design more than anything I think. The UI has got to be clean enough to not put off the "I just want to spend 5 minutes having some fun" users, while also being fascinating and fun for the "I want this to offer me so many options and so much immersion that it will take me years and lots of thought/analysis to master it."

ADDIT: slightly tangential but . . . a theme here that I see neglected in many game design studios mode of thinking/designing, is to make full use of mouse controls and also to use alternatives to the standard rectangular drop down/popup panes. Old game called "Temple of Elemental Evil" which was a Real-time-pauseable/turn-based combat Dungeons & Dragons game: used the right-click button as a bottleneck to a host of user inputs that one could effectively ignore while initially learning the game, but which made mid- to high-level play much more rich. Right-clicking on a character or other object in the game view would open up these neat radial menus which allowed you to queue "commands" for the character(s) like parrying, defensive stance, etc.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Diche Bach

[tater]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

It seems like any argument that you don't agree with is a non-argument.  My points are valid, you not agreeing with them doesn't make them a 'non-argument'.

Since we can have no possible idea (short of a post here by one of the principals) if adding RoverDude's already built LS is substantial work, and if so, if that would take away from some other project we could also argue about (though bug fixing, etc, as a project is unlikely to find anyone here in disagreement with), I'd say it's an argument that by definition we cannot assign any reasonable value to. Given that RoverDude doesn't seem to be the bug fix guy (looks like NathanKell and Arsonide are more in that area), any work in adding LS would take away from what other things that he's working on? Note that he's working on his LS (and all the other USI stuff) in addition to what he's doing officially, anyway.

So I'd argue that it's a win as a toggle, with no demonstrable downside.

Edited September 7, 2016 by tater

[mikerl]

From the poll on this thread, it is clear that views on this are 'conflicted' and there is no majority view.  This topic does come up so often that Squad has to consider it.  If they do, I'm certain it will have options and be able to be configured including off.  I think it will eventually be added, even if it is just mod support with the mechanics in the game, but no user access.  I think some of the maybes could become one of the others depending on implementation.

It seems a discussion on options would be good.  LS could have options going from off, simple EC-only, single resource (i.e. Snacks), dual resource (i.e. USI-LS), or multi resource (i.e TAC-LS).  It would also need options for punishment ranging from a warning, reduced control, no control, or death.  Another thing to consider is the use of cryogenics for long term travel.  Do you want none and travel between planets like in The Martian, or use it like in Interstellar?

I suppose I'd like a discussion on what life support we want to see, since it would allow more viewpoints.  Squad will have to implement one with options similar to what they did with heating.

[NWM]

Definitely yes. Now there is no inevitable technical border of manned visiting the outer planets. Just you must have a huge VAB and you can attack any celestial in the solar system with the 90scp gadgets. It would make more reason of the probe missions, and the technological development in the step-by-step conquering of the space.

And yes, it should be tweakable (and being turned off entirely) as many of the players would play a simpler game. Yes, we care of them, although they ignores our wish their simple NO...

[78stonewobble]

19 hours ago, Diche Bach said:

Games that give users more options are generally better than games that give users less options . . . right up to the point that the effect of giving more options causes the game to be experienced as "more complicated" instead of "more immersive/rich."

Fella over on the Stellaris forums opined quite eloquently about this issue in a similar discussion pertaining to whether Paradox should include a particular featre in an update to the game as an toggleable option or not (actually it might have been food transport between planets! ).

When a user launches an app and is greeted with a bewildering if-not overwhelming display of obscure controls, buttons, knobs and valves = giving user more options has not served well.

When a user launches an app and is greeted by a welcoming, cognitively-intuitive, seemingly-straightforwad at first glance UI, which . . . on further examination by user action turns out to reveal even more "goodies" under the hood that the user can play with _IF_ he or she wants to = giving user more options can serve well.

It is about UI design more than anything I think. The UI has got to be clean enough to not put off the "I just want to spend 5 minutes having some fun" users, while also being fascinating and fun for the "I want this to offer me so many options and so much immersion that it will take me years and lots of thought/analysis to master it."

ADDIT: slightly tangential but . . . a theme here that I see neglected in many game design studios mode of thinking/designing, is to make full use of mouse controls and also to use alternatives to the standard rectangular drop down/popup panes. Old game called "Temple of Elemental Evil" which was a Real-time-pauseable/turn-based combat Dungeons & Dragons game: used the right-click button as a bottleneck to a host of user inputs that one could effectively ignore while initially learning the game, but which made mid- to high-level play much more rich. Right-clicking on a character or other object in the game view would open up these neat radial menus which allowed you to queue "commands" for the character(s) like parrying, defensive stance, etc.

I think this is very well put.

In my humble oppinion, a good game with "depth", is not necessarily or maybe, "automatically" complicated. A good game with depth mirrors the players efforts/investment. If you invest a small amount of time... it will be a casual experience... If you invest a great deal of time and effort... it will be a "deep" experience.

...

In regards to how and if life support should be implemented in stock ksp I don't exactly know how applicable it is tho. I would still prefer it to be an option.

But if you apply my above sentiment on depth/complication scaling to LS in KSP, then LS could be ignored for basic flight and rocketry at kerbin, only minimal thought or none for trips to the moons of Kerbin. LS would come into play for relatively long stays in spacestations and nearby planet trips and be absolutely essential for long complicated missions.

Which would allow for casual players, to build a plane and fly around, launch some rockets and get to orbit and the mun... and if they then embark on longer journeys to the other planets... I'd say the casual player status is a bit over with, or atleast to the degree that the player can be expected to also deal with a bit of life support.

Just my random 5 cents... 

[Tyko]

Building on what @78stonewobble said...and tying in another thread about many players never going further than Minmus. A system that includes a limited amount of LS by default in all capsules - say enough for a quick trip to Minmus and back - but requires more planning for extended lunar stays or longer missions would kind of fit the bill for me. Players who are just exploring the area around Kerbin would be covered, but once someone was experienced enough to want bigger challenges they'd find the need for life support layered on. 

This keeps the learning curve for new players from getting steeper and offers a way for the challenge to grow. Currently it's not really much more complicated to get to Duna or Laythe than it is to get to Minmus. You need more time and more DeltaV, but the essential challenges are the same. This would change that

@RoverDude kind of tackles this in USI LS already. With a bit of tweaking I think it would work really well.

Edited September 8, 2016 by tjt

[Andem]

On 9/7/2016 at 11:02 AM, mikerl said:

From the poll on this thread, it is clear that views on this are 'conflicted' and there is no majority view.

Yes, well, that's with FPTP polling. If we look at what people actually* want, we would split the "Maybe" group in half, and add them to each other option. Now, because the vast majority of folks here say they want it but only as a toggle, We will just add the extra person to the "Yes" option. Now, It's very clear who the majority is. Just a little bit of math.

On 9/7/2016 at 11:02 AM, mikerl said:

It seems a discussion on options would be good.  LS could have options going from off, simple EC-only, single resource (i.e. Snacks), dual resource (i.e. USI-LS), or multi resource (i.e TAC-LS).  It would also need options for punishment ranging from a warning, reduced control, no control, or death.  Another thing to consider is the use of cryogenics for long term travel.  Do you want none and travel between planets like in The Martian, or use it like in Interstellar?

I suppose I'd like a discussion on what life support we want to see, since it would allow more viewpoints.  Squad will have to implement one with options similar to what they did with heating.

Or... they could do what they actually did with heating... implement a new system to match the stock mechanical style.

[adsii1970]

Why? If there is a mod for it, why make it stock in vanilla? Keep it as a mod. While I do understand there are a fair number of people that like that particular mod or concept, there are those of us who do not. I want to launch rockets and explore the Kerbol system. I do not want to have to worry about supplies, life support, etc. Now, if at some time I decide to change my mind about this, even then I would not want it to be stock.

Now, if there was ever a mod that needed to be stock, it would be Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) for sure.

[Red Iron Crown]

5 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Why? If there is a mod for it, why make it stock in vanilla?

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are some players who don't use any mods for a variety of reasons, as well as console users who can't even if they wanted to. Many of the features added to KSP were previously made available via mods.

Can't disagree about KER, though.

[Andem]

3 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Why? If there is a mod for it, why make it stock in vanilla? Keep it as a mod. While I do understand there are a fair number of people that like that particular mod or concept, there are those of us who do not. I want to launch rockets and explore the Kerbol system. I do not want to have to worry about supplies, life support, etc. Now, if at some time I decide to change my mind about this, even then I would not want it to be stock.

I know that this is going to sound really nasty, but there's this whole thread of people basically addressing this. Really. 95% of the thread is replying to this point over and over again. YOU COULD TURN IT OFF IF YOU DON'T WANT IT FOR GOD'S SAKE! Even the argument that "It's already a mod" is bogus, because a mod is liable to just disappear, or become horribly broken in the next update. Mods are vulnerable, the game is not. 

[tater]

20 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Why? If there is a mod for it, why make it stock in vanilla? Keep it as a mod. While I do understand there are a fair number of people that like that particular mod or concept, there are those of us who do not. I want to launch rockets and explore the Kerbol system. I do not want to have to worry about supplies, life support, etc. Now, if at some time I decide to change my mind about this, even then I would not want it to be stock.

Now, if there was ever a mod that needed to be stock, it would be Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) for sure.

FAR was better than the soup, so why bother improving the atmosphere, just use FAR, right? It was before my time (0.23-0.24 was when I started), but didn't there used to be no landing legs? Were there any in mods before stock? Then why add legs to stock, when there were mods for that? If the answer is functionally no more than "I think X should be stock," or "because I like X, it should obviously be stock," then the argument doesn't cut it.

 

[Fearless leader]

I say yes and no. It makes the game more realistic, but it could limit the fun for some and increases work for many stations, bases, and other thingies which could limit time to make other things . I suggest this feature can be toggled on or off.

[magnemoe]

18 hours ago, tjt said:

Building on what @78stonewobble said...and tying in another thread about many players never going further than Minmus. A system that includes a limited amount of LS by default in all capsules - say enough for a quick trip to Minmus and back - but requires more planning for extended lunar stays or longer missions would kind of fit the bill for me. Players who are just exploring the area around Kerbin would be covered, but once someone was experienced enough to want bigger challenges they'd find the need for life support layered on. 

This keeps the learning curve for new players from getting steeper and offers a way for the challenge to grow. Currently it's not really much more complicated to get to Duna or Laythe than it is to get to Minmus. You need more time and more DeltaV, but the essential challenges are the same. This would change that

@RoverDude kind of tackles this in USI LS already. With a bit of tweaking I think it would work really well.

Part of the fun with life support for me is how to beat them, you can have oxygen and water recycling, this reduce the use of this but increase dry mass. An greenhouse is even better but also heavier.
An large greenhouse with mining can make you self supporting and even create an extra but require an large base who tend to also have isru and science lab.

Now going to Mun require just that in the pod, you could increase this to 20 days so you could go to Minmus, do some landings and return. 
For an Duna or Gilly mission with 3 kerbals, water and oxygen recycling makes sense. 

I always play with it but not sure how well it will work for new players. 

[lajoswinkler]

Absolutely. I wouldn't go as far as adding lots of resources like TAC does, which is really complicated and, IMO, serves no purpose. I'd add "food" and "waste", containers and a recycler. Easy peasy.

 

And quite frankly, I'm pretty sick of reactionary behaviour in this community. This is again the same thing as with reentry heating. "Nooo, disgusting idea, KSP is about little green men flying around space, we don't need danger, you suck, why should we improve the game, it's good as it is!"

 

That's called reactionarism. It ruined the barn, it seems to have indefinitively delayed new planetary bodies and TWR/delta v monitor, but luckily it did not manage to curb reentry heating and heat in general, as well as advanced aerodynamics.

 

Simple and elegant life support with a monitor (just like basic readouts as Kerbal Engineering Redux provides) would add an interesting thing to think of. More planning, more purpose for different station modules, more challenge for far planetary destinations.

 

I honestly wish some of you would pull your heads out of the sand. Your squeaking is getting boring.

[Crocket]

1 hour ago, lajoswinkler said:

That's called reactionarism. It ruined the barn,

 

1 hour ago, lajoswinkler said:

It ruined the barn

The barn? Please do edjamacate me.

[passinglurker]

4 minutes ago, Crocket said:

The barn? Please do edjamacate me.

When squad was first developing the facilities mechanic the showed the "tier 0" starter assets... and they were crap... like seriously the quality was garage. Don't get me wrong looking like it was made out of nails and wood was fine in concept but the actual level of modeling and texturing craftsmanship was inconsistent with the quality of work bac9 had done on the KSC that we now know as tier 3.

So there was some outcry and the barn was scrapped which triggered a second backlash from users that either A have terrible senses of taste and wanted the garbage buildings, or B liked the idea of humble beginnings but still thought the barn needed some work and would only accept what was originally shown as place holders at best.

Squad listened, and so now the barn exists in limbo slated for some time post-release maybe assuming they aren't just hoping we forget about it like we did gas giant 2. these promises were made by devs that are no longer with us after all.

I'd just wish they'd expose the facilities assets to modding so we can make our own castles dedicated to schools of witchcraft and rocketry if we so wished.

[Andem]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

When squad was first developing the facilities mechanic the showed the "tier 0" starter assets... and they were crap... like seriously the quality was garage. Don't get me wrong looking like it was made out of nails and wood was fine in concept but the actual level of modeling and texturing craftsmanship was inconsistent with the quality of work bac9 had done on the KSC that we now know as tier 3.

So there was some outcry and the barn was scrapped which triggered a second backlash from users that either A have terrible senses of taste and wanted the garbage buildings, or B liked the idea of humble beginnings but still thought the barn needed some work and would only accept what was originally shown as place holders at best.

Squad listened, and so now the barn exists in limbo slated for some time post-release maybe assuming they aren't just hoping we forget about it like we did gas giant 2. these promises were made by devs that are no longer with us after all.

I'd just wish they'd expose the facilities assets to modding so we can make our own castles dedicated to schools of witchcraft and rocketry if we so wished.

^^This. I fall quite neatly into team B, and I still want my damn GP2!