Do you think Life Support should be Vanilla?

[Andem]

11 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

All life support boils down to is "You have to add x amount of mass to your rocket to provide for y amount of Kerbals."

It's just not that impressive of a gameplay mechanic, in my opinion.

Do you suggest we get rid of electric charge and fuel, then?

[passinglurker]

26 minutes ago, Andem said:

The reason that I love USILS so much is that every facet of the mod is configurable. If you don't want the Hab/Home times, you don't have too. I think that USILS is the perfect LS model to build off of. It allows for every playstyle except for Balance 30 different resources all at once on 68 crafts!

said it before in the devnotes thread that "infinitely configurable!" doesn't work for a paid for product like stock. The default stock experience still needs to be something most users recognize as fun even if it's not anyone's ideal. Paying customers aren't going to want to bumble around finding the right settings for them on thier first play through of ksp and so without a consensus life support will remain in the realm of users who have exhausted the stock experience and are experimenting with new things to spice thier game up(i.e. the realm of mods).

[ShotgunNinja]

@Randazzo Consider this example: You went on manned orbit around the moon. With EC required for climatization, you need to burn for the Earth transfer such that the trajectory is not in shadow for more than N hours or else the vessel batteries will run out, leading to freezing of the crew.

Another example: you plan a manned mission to Mars. Now you need to choose between carrying more food and other consumabled and taking an energetically efficient transfer, or to speed up the transfer but carry less food.

Both of these influence the design of the mission in more complex way that 'add tank and boosters and forget about it'.

[Andem]

2 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

said it before in the devnotes thread that "infinitely configurable!" doesn't work for a paid for product like stock. The default stock experience still needs to be something most users recognize as fun even if it's not anyone's ideal. Paying customers aren't going to want to bumble around finding the right settings for them on thier first play through of ksp and so without a consensus life support will remain in the realm of users who have exhausted the stock experience and are experimenting with new things to spice thier game up(i.e. the realm of mods).

There is a difference between custom configuration and default experience, you know. What I keep saying is that if a person doesn't like the default choice, they should have a limited capacity to change the settings. Is that completely unreasonable in any way?

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, Andem said:

There is a difference between custom configuration and default experience, you know. What I keep saying is that if a person doesn't like the default choice, they should have a limited capacity to change the settings. Is that completely unreasonable in any way?

It's reasonable but you still need a solid default to start from if you are expecting people to pay money for it. what I'm saying is that life support game play as we know it isn't that solid yet. If anything it's just shown most users what they don't want.

[GraviTykillz]

No..plz make it optional. However PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ! give us the abality to paint our plane and rockets! 

[Andem]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

It's reasonable but you still need a solid default to start from if you are expecting people to pay money for it. what I'm saying is that life support game play as we know it isn't that solid yet. If anything it's just shown most users what they don't want.

I know. I'm suggesting that we use USILS as the base because it is mechanically and configurably(?) sound in it's design.

[Randazzo]

28 minutes ago, Andem said:

Do you suggest we get rid of electric charge and fuel, then?

Yes, that is entirely what I suggested and not ridiculous at all. Also, being antagonistic totally encourages me to support your opinion. A fine internet argument you have presented, sir.

23 minutes ago, ShotgunNinja said:

@Randazzo Consider this example: You went on manned orbit around the moon. With EC required for climatization, you need to burn for the Earth transfer such that the trajectory is not in shadow for more than N hours or else the vessel batteries will run out, leading to freezing of the crew.

Another example: you plan a manned mission to Mars. Now you need to choose between carrying more food and other consumabled and taking an energetically efficient transfer, or to speed up the transfer but carry less food.

Both of these influence the design of the mission in more complex way that 'add tank and boosters and forget about it'.

Both of these are "Add x mass to support y kerbals" just phrased differently. I respect that you like the idea. I do not.

---

General Statement: I was under the impression this was an opinion poll.

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Randazzo

[juvilado]

I endorse Life support in stock, with customization, like heat. You can customize the life support requirements or even deactivate it.

[septemberWaves]

I first played with Kerbalism earlier today. It's an interesting experience and I like what it adds in to the game. Would I want something like it to be required in order to play? Absolutely not. Life support makes for an incredibly fun challenge, but only when the player actually wants that added level of difficulty. Whilst I would not have questioned life support if it had been stock since I began playing, I certainly feel that such a drastic addition now would not be a good idea.

However, I welcome the idea of being able to choose whether or not to use a life support system. Obviously that's doable now with mods, but it would be a nice option for stock. That way, new players wouldn't have to deal with that added risk when they're just learning how to build rockets, and those of us who have been playing for longer would have a new level of difficulty available in stock only if we wanted to use it.

As I was typing this, @juvilado actually summed up the same thoughts pretty nicely:

5 minutes ago, juvilado said:

I endorse Life support in stock, with customization, like heat. You can customize the life support requirements or even deactivate it.

 

[Red Iron Crown]

43 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

All life support boils down to is "You have to add x amount of mass to your rocket to provide for y amount of Kerbals."

It's just not that impressive of a gameplay mechanic, in my opinion.

It's more than just mass, though, it's time. Rather than just "add x mass for each kerbal" it's "add x mass for each kerbal-day". It adds urgency to the mission, and penalizes screwups that cost time. 

Before using a life support mod I never found it desirable to use a high energy transfer between planets, and never had to launch a rescue mission that had a hard deadline on the arrival time. 

Whether those things are desirable is very much a matter of opinion, but life support is not as simple a consideration as you describe.

[Mister Dilsby]

1 minute ago, Red Iron Crown said:

It's more than just mass, though, it's time. Rather than just "add x mass for each kerbal" it's "add x mass for each kerbal-day". It adds urgency to the mission, and penalizes screwups that cost time. 

Or it could be about "what mass do I need to add and what systems need to work together, in what ratios, to make the time infinite" That's what I did to put together a long-term solution for 12 Kerbals in my current Jool mission. Food stores, recyclers, fertilizer supplies, ISRU to replenish certain stocks and enough shipboard power to run it all. Wisely, most systems like @RoverDude's USI-LS are designed not to have closed-loop capability (at least for shipboard use), so we have to be clever little systems engineers (and use additional mods) if that's what we want. 

But even if my big ship can go five years between replenishments there are still time considerations. The landers don't carry any supplies at all, which means the ship has to move to each moon in the Jool system to support landings. And if anyone does get stuck on the surface, I need to send something down to rescue them--and for some moons (looking at you, Tylo!) there isn't a second lander capable of making the trip. This adds a lot to my gameplay, well beyond the simpler problem of packing enough dV and/or ISRU to get there and back.

But that's not for everyone, and so I still wouldn't make it vanilla.  

[Snark]

2 hours ago, tater said:

I think the habitation issue is reasonably well-treated in USILS, actually. It's not "micromanaging," perhaps because it basically rewards what I did anyway.

And that's the thing.  I do find it intrusive.

2 hours ago, tater said:

If you <don't play the way I do>, then yeah, you're gonna have a problem. If you're like me [snip], then it's not an issue.

^ Edited to make my point:  essentially what you're saying is that this is going to enforce a particular play style on users.  If the play style happens to be the one that you like, then that's good for you... but it's a total game-breaker for people who don't like that style.  It would be a total non-starter for me, for example.

Players have very different play styles.

2 hours ago, tater said:

I think it's not a bad idea to codify it in some fashion.

And I think it is a bad idea.  Because I don't want to play that way.  And lots of other people don't, either.

Really, what I'm saying is this:  Life support (e.g. "you die if you run out of air") is one thing.  Habitation requirements (e.g. "you need living space or your crew is unhappy") is a completely different thing.  In terms of gameplay, they're completely orthogonal.

Therefore... I'd really say they shouldn't be tied together.  View them as separate features.  Life support would be a feature that clearly needs to be made an optional difficulty setting on a per-game basis:  nobody should be forced to use it.  In the exact same vein, habitation requirements, if implemented, also would need to be toggleable.

Those two toggles shouldn't be tied together.  And implementation of the one shouldn't be gated on implementation of the other-- i.e. those are two completely different features and don't necessarily need to be implemented at the same time or released in the same update.

I happen to think that life support should take priority over habitation requirements, and not just because I love the one and hate the other.  I think that because I believe it would work better for the player base as a whole.

First and foremost:  Life support is easier to design.  "You have <stuff>, you consume it over time at a constant rate, and <bad thing> happens when it runs out."  There.  That's it.  That's the design, right there.  You can add a few bells and whistles around recycling equipment and what-not, or planning tools, but those are fairly minor details that don't affect what the feature basically is.  I don't think anyone could possibly argue with that design, it's what life support is.  Maybe you might like to have it turned on at all or not.  Or you might want a knob you can turn for how fast the stuff runs out.  Or you might want a difficulty setting for exactly what the "bad thing" is-- e.g. do the kerbals actually die, or do they just go into hibernation or something?  But those are very simple options and would be veary easy to include in the life support difficulty settings.  You have a "life support mode" radio button which can be set to "off" (no LS at all), "easy" (it's on, but kerbals just hibernate), or "hardcore" (kerbals die); and you have a slider for choosing the rate of resource consumption.  There, it's done, and everybody can have pretty much exactly what they want.

Habitation requirements are another matter entirely.  It's really difficult to design, because it's completely arbitrary.  There's no clear obvious thing that ought to happen to unhappy kerbals who lack living space, nor is there a clear obvious level of complexity that it ought to have.  No matter what you implement, you're going to have a lot of people who think what you did is dumb.  There's no rule that you have to please everyone, but this is a really hard feature to design in a way that is going to please most people.  Doesn't necessarily mean "don't do it"... but I think it means it should be decoupled from life support implementation (which is much more straightforward).

 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

And that's the thing.  I do find it intrusive.

^ Edited to make my point:  essentially what you're saying is that this is going to enforce a particular play style on users.  If the play style happens to be the one that you like, then that's good for you... but it's a total game-breaker for people who don't like that style.  It would be a total non-starter for me, for example.

Players have very different play styles.

My style of play is one that embraces the realities of life support. If you don't, then turning it on at all is outside of your style of play.

If you think that as long as a being has food/air/etc for 20 years, they'd be fine living alone in the volume of a port-a-potty for that period, then maybe LS isn't your thing at all  . (EDIT: I'm using "you" generically, not to mean you in particular)

 

Quote

And I think it is a bad idea.  Because I don't want to play that way.  And lots of other people don't, either.

Really, what I'm saying is this:  Life support (e.g. "you die if you run out of air") is one thing.  Habitation requirements (e.g. "you need living space or your crew is unhappy") is a completely different thing.  In terms of gameplay, they're completely orthogonal.

I agree they are certainly different, and something I would prefer split in USILS. Your craft lands on Duna, too far from the pre-landed hab, for example. Your descent vehicle includes supplies for a long period of time, but it's tiny. You could totally survive there for as long as your supplies last. Since KSP gives kerbals nothing at to do, that is functionally the same as the kerbal being a tourist---he's there consuming LS, nothing more, until rescue. Having him die because he's in no more space than a mk1 pod would be silly, IMO. So I think we are in agreement.

So I'd like both taken into account, but not treated identically. Lack of LS should equal death. Insufficiently habitable? Not death, but perhaps at an extreme results in the kerbal being ineffective at their job (which now is a tourist as the only option). Another option would be that bad habitation eventually reduces skill levels, then they become tourists. Still meaningless minus something like KAS/KIS where they might do something on EVA.

Quote

Therefore... I'd really say they shouldn't be tied together.  View them as separate features.  Life support would be a feature that clearly needs to be made an optional difficulty setting on a per-game basis:  nobody should be forced to use it.  In the exact same vein, habitation requirements, if implemented, also would need to be toggleable.

I see habitation as actually the easier to wrap noobs around, but I agree they should be separate.

"Easy" might be no LS at all.

"Normal" life support (and I'm conflating habitation and LS here, even though I agree they should be separate, but bear with me!) would be along the lines of: 

"Trips of X to 4X weeks require 1 Hitchhiker (or equiv volume of living space) for every 4 kerbals or they risk becoming ineffective at their jobs"

"Trips of greater than 4X weeks require one HH per 2 kerbals (or equiv)."

After that time period, they start becoming tourists. Perhaps skill 0 right away, skill 1 after 1 week, and so forth. Done. Super simple "LS" with no supplies to even worry about.

"Hard" LS would add in the actual LS supplies with death, plus the habitation stuff.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2016 by tater

[passinglurker]

2 hours ago, Andem said:

I know. I'm suggesting that we use USILS as the base because it is mechanically and configurably(?) sound in it's design.

I know and I'm saying configurability isn't enough it still needs to be a decent experience by default if it is to actually ship with ksp the fact that it is so decisive shows that the existing experience isn't decent yet.

[nascarlaser1]

I think it should be added, but only as a setting on world generation, like "allow life support". This would allow experienced players who want a new challenge to say yes, but new players who just want to practice building and flying say no to it.

[pandaman]

@Snark. Having just read your post above it made me realise what I should have before, that Life Support (survival) and Crew Habitation (happiness and efficiency)  requirements are indeed distinctly different entities with different gameplay implications and effects.

Each could be represented in the game independently of the other, and need not therefore be added together.  Either one could be toggled off, leaving the other still functioning, without any issues.

Habitation modules as parts would also not need to have the 'happines and efficiency effects' toggle swithed on either, they would still be used by many players anyway just to 'look cool' and give a 'sense' of living quarters etc to stations and bases. 

For me I would quite like to see both systems added, though with settings and toggles, as already mentioned, to switch each system on or off and adjust the severity and effects of each independently as individual players wish.

For stock though it is IMO very important that both systems are quite simple to understand and use in game.  Leaving the more detailed and 'realistic' implementations for mods. 

[Van Disaster]

5 hours ago, regex said:

^^ This. I find it fine and good to require enough space for Kerbals for a given voyage, and generally try to provide that as an RP exercise (also makes for cooler ships in general), but micromanaging them isn't why I play this game.

Also, not having Kerbals die from lack of life support is a non-starter for me, just like any sort of recycler/extender machinery (although I just don't use those so ...)

I'm nor quoting Snark's post in entirety, but this was the relevant bit: I don't want to turn this into Sims-in-space either, but needing a range of facilities on a craft which the crew are assumed to use automatically gives a lot of flexibility if the solution is less than optimal. Not enough oxygen aboard? exercise less & sleep more & deal with the results, etc etc. I used to use TAC & stopped when I realised it wasn't adding anything beyond the odd greenhouse & a few more resupply flights, there wasn't anything which made me go about voyages in a different way.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

A new poll may be in order, who uses what LS if any, or for how long- like many I have tried LS but never stuck with one, KSP can quickly become a management/logistics game, not too exciting IMO. Even just having a handful of local outposts becomes a bit of a hassle, let alone managing them while trying to do some long term, far away missions.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Waxing_Kibbous

[foamyesque]

6 hours ago, Randazzo said:

All life support boils down to is "You have to add x amount of mass to your rocket to provide for y amount of Kerbals."

It's just not that impressive of a gameplay mechanic, in my opinion.

 

With the addition of more realistic aerodynamics and reentry heating that has occurred, having to carry extra mass on a rocket actually does change how you fly missions quite considerably. Likewise, the timing restrictions that non-closed-cycle LS will impose will create changes all by themselves.

 

EDIT:

 

For example, interplanetary transits aren't going to be "eh, I'll just timewarp through a few dozen orbits if I miss my intercept".

Edited August 26, 2016 by foamyesque

[tater]

Yeah, I disagree with any 100% perfect recovery system on the scale of KSP spacecraft. It's much more plausible for landed facilities (because there are inputs possible short of delivery by other spacecraft).

Not long after I started playing I landed Jeb on Duna... as I recall, the craft was not substantially different than a Mun lander, except that it had a parachute or 2 (3?), which allowed it to use almost all the fuel for ascent. So a lone kerbal in a tiny pod for a RT Duna mission. Every expedition since has looked rather more like Mars Direct---even without adding in LS mods. 

You also cannot forget that everything is connected. LS adds meaningful TIME to KSP. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by tater

[Pthigrivi]

30 minutes ago, Waxing_Kibbous said:

A new poll may be in order, who uses what LS if any, or for how long- like many I have tried LS but never stuck with one, KSP can quickly become a management/logistics game, not too exciting IMO. Even just having a handful of local outposts becomes a bit of a hassle, let alone managing them while trying to do some long term, far away missions.

What I did was install USI LS and then edit the big converter's cfg so it could produce fertilizer. That way you can have self-sustaining bases without adding closed-loop LS. For stock I might like to see a second resource from which you could mine fertilizer, that way you'd have to think a bit about the best place to build. I think it's a nice balance because you still have to plan your missions carefully but if you do things right you won't have to resupply interplanetary bases. 

[Fred Cop]

We've already got people who forget to set up their staging correctly, we've got people who leave Monoprop in their pods when they actually don't need it (which becomes a bit of an issue in Career Mode), we've got people who still have trouble designing rockets or planes...

...I don't think I'd like to struggle with Life Support, and if I did mess up then my Kerbals would die... ...a LOT of Kerbals.

[SpacedCowboy]

No. Optional only!

[Waxing_Kibbous]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

What I did was install USI LS and then edit the big converter's cfg so it could produce fertilizer. That way you can have self-sustaining bases without adding closed-loop LS. For stock I might like to see a second resource from which you could mine fertilizer, that way you'd have to think a bit about the best place to build. I think it's a nice balance because you still have to plan your missions carefully but if you do things right you won't have to resupply interplanetary bases. 

Yeah, this sounds like something I would try- perhaps LS would be more palatable if there was a sort of "end game" unit that could keep Kerbals sustained indefinitely, but only with a ton of EC. Harvesting is a great idea too

Edited August 27, 2016 by Waxing_Kibbous