[Discussion] My thoughts on life-support.

[Acid_Burn9]

There were plenty of discussions about life support on this forum already. From my understanding, community is currently divided in two major groups. First one argues, that life-support will be a cool mechanics to add into the game, and another argues, that it's not necessary. The major disagreement between these two groups lies in will life support be too complex to have. But the thing is - complexity of life support is almost entirely depended on the way of implementation. There might be countless amounts of parts and resources, required to keep Kerbals alive, which truly might be too complex, and might be just a single part called life support with only 2 resources inside - oxygen and snacks, that drain over time, which is no where near "too complex". My point here is, that there is no reason to argue whether it will be too much for the stock game or not, while we have no idea of the shape on life support, that will or will not be implemented into the game. I want you guys to think about it from a different perspective and be open minded.

While discussing possible improvements in KSP 2, a lot of people have talked about how sending a manned missions before drones makes very little sense(i'm talking about the missions that are at least "get to orbit" complex). I agree. Original Kerbal Space Program does not represent the level of complexity included in manned missions, compared to unmanned ones. There was no point in sending reconnaissance and testing missions to your destination.

First reason for that is, that all the information about celestial bodies, necessary for the missions, was already available in the Tracking Station. It can easily be solved, by removing all the info from tracking station, and integrating process of collecting said data into the progression system. Necessity of observing the Mun(or any other celestial body) with telescopes, researching acquired data, in order to calculate size/mass/orbital velocities, and sending probes to it, in order to clarify data, instead of blindly sending Kerbals roughly in the direction of the Mun(or any other celestial body), without any idea what will happen, should be essential and even fits well with the concept of progression system through missions in the "Adventure Mode" PC Gamer article talked about.

The second reason was, that in KSP 1, in order to send manned mission you only need 3 parts. Crew module, fuel tank and the engine(You don't even need the parachute these days! Every Kerbal has his own!). For the unmanned mission however, instead of crew module, you need drone core. But that's not it. You also need a power source, to keep it running. Solar panels, fuels cells, RTGs, you name it. You also need a decent battery reserves, for your probe to not die, once it enters the dark side of any celestial body. And don't forget about antenna! You have to keep your up-link with KSC in order to control your vessel! Do i even have to mention necessity of relay satellites for the deep-deep space missions? All of that makes unmanned missions 10 times more complex, than the manned ones, which is precisely the opposite of how it should be and how it was and is IRL. And this can be solved precisely with introduction of life-support.

Necessity of having to put oxygen tank and supply of snacks on your rocket, can be the answer on why you maybe should pick unmanned mission over the manned one, for a simple survey, that can be done autonomously and Kerbals are not even necessary for. Inability to produce snacks and oxygen for kerbals in mid-flight, while being able to produce electricity for the probe with solar panels, can be the answer on why you maybe should pick unmanned mission over the manned one, for a mission to a distant destination. Importance of sending unmanned survey missions also benefits from presence of life support, because of ability to measure the temperature/radiation levels/gravity/composition of the atmosphere, in order to use that data to understand, can Kerbals survive there and which type of life-support will they need. And have you noticed how i mentioned temperature/radiation levels/gravity/composition of the atmosphere? That's right! All the science experiments, from original KSP now suddenly have AN ACTUAL PURPOSE, other than just collecting some magical science points, that will unlock new engine for you, which once again fits very well with announced progression system through missions.

And since we are talking about progression system through missions - life-support can enhance even that. Think about how you would have to perform test-flights with experimental hardware in order to develop more advanced life-support systems. Don't tell me it won't be fun.
Some examples: 
When you start your game you have nothing.
* After you complete your first high-altitude flight and discover, that there is very little oxygen there, you unlock a oxygen cylinder, like the ones, that divers use.
* When you complete your first sub-orbital flight and experience zero-G for the first time, you unlock tubes with food for your Kerbals, so you can actually feed them in zero-G and perform flights, that are longer than just couple hours.
And so on and so on. Possibilities are almost limitless!
And suddenly replicating X-15 flights now also have a purpose!

In conclusion i want to quote myself from my post about career mode. KSP is the game all about challenge of getting to space. If you are already enjoying original KSP, you definitely will enjoy new challenges of getting to space in the sequel, once you master them, just as you already mastered the challenges of original KSP. Don't be afraid of complexity. And remember, that this won't be boring by definition, but can become boring only if designed poorly. And just because it can be designed poorly, doesn't mean it will be. Having said all that, i am certain, that life-support will be a good addition to KSP 2, and i have faith, that Nate Simpson and all the guys from Intercept Games are capable of implementing it in the way it will be fun.

EDIT
And don't tell me how Jeb Kerman, orbiting Kerbin on a Space Chair with scuba diver oxygen cylinder attached and some chocolate bars in his pocket, is not in the Kerbal Spirit.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Acid_Burn9

[Bej Kerman]

It won't be fun if we can't do this

[RealKerbal3x]

Just now, Bej Kerman said:

It won't be fun if we can't do this

It can always be a toggleable feature, like Commnet is.

[Acid_Burn9]

12 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

It won't be fun if we can't do this

Who says you won't be able to do something like this? A little hibernation capsule below the space-chair, couple of chocolate bars, oxygen cylinder, requisitioned from a scuba diver and you are good to go! Have some creativity! 

11 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

It can always be a toggleable feature, like Commnet is.

So true! I always play with CommNet and G-limits for Kerbals on. So much fun!

Edited July 2, 2020 by Acid_Burn9

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

There were plenty of discussions about life support on this forum already. From my understanding, community is currently divided in two major groups. First one argues, that life-support will be a cool mechanics to add into the game, and another argues, that it's not necessary. The major disagreement between these two groups lies in will life support be too complex to have. But the thing is - complexity of life support is almost entirely depended on the way of implementation. There might be countless amounts of parts and resources, required to keep Kerbals alive, which truly might be too complex, and might be just a single part called life support with only 2 resources inside - oxygen and snacks, that drain over time, which is no where near "too complex". My point here is, that there is no reason to argue whether it will be too much for the stock game or not, while we have no idea of the shape on life support, that will or will not be implemented into the game. I want you guys to think about it from a different perspective and be open minded.

Since we'll have inflatable modules, centrifuge habitats, true bases and stations, colonies and building them is a big part of the game I would think that they're planning to add some sort of habitation and/or homesickness system, and I would argue that that's more important than having a "food" resource, life support isn't all about consumables, a big part of that is keeping people alive in a hostile environment and keeping them sane when traveling for months in a tin can.

 

21 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

While discussing possible improvements in KSP 2, a lot of people have talked about how sending a manned missions before drones makes very little sense. I agree.

I somehow disagree, I want the possibility of starting with unmanned launches, but I also want the possibility of forgoing rockets and starting with rocket planes (or airships, why not?), there are many different way on how a space program can be started, launching Sputnik it's just one of them.

 

23 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

First reason for that is, that all the information about celestial bodies, necessary for the missions, was already available in the Tracking Station. It can easily be solved, by removing all the info from tracking station, and integrating process of collecting said data into the progression system. Necessity of observing the Mun(or any other celestial body) with telescopes, researching acquired data, in order to calculate size/mass/orbital velocities, and sending probes to it, in order to clarify data, instead of blindly sending Kerbals roughly in the direction of the Mun(or any other celestial body), without any idea what will happen, should be essential and even fits well with the concept of progression system through missions in the "Adventure Mode" PC Gamer article talked about.

I think that this would add difficult in the worst part of the game, if you were talking about Jool's moons I would agree, but at the time of doing the first mun mission most veteran players would see this as busywork and newer ones would find it an additional obstacle on an already steep learning curve.

 

25 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

And since we are talking about progression system through missions - life-support can enhance even that. Think about how you would have to perform test-flights with experimental hardware in order to develop more advanced life-support systems. Don't tell me it won't be fun.
Some examples: 
When you start your game you have nothing.
* After you complete your first high-altitude flight and discover, that there is very little oxygen there, you unlock a oxygen cylinder, like the ones, that divers use.
* When you complete your first sub-orbital flight and experience zero-G for the first time, you unlock tubes with food for your Kerbals, so you can actually feed them in zero-G and perform flights, that are longer than just couple hours.
And so on and so on. Possibilities are almost limitless!
And suddenly replicating X-15 flights now also have a purpose!

Having to build and experiment on a space station before building a colony on Mun could be a good way of giving "missions" to the player early-game.

24 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

It won't be fun if we can't do this

Most of those missions are done in sandbox anyway, I don't see those challenges disappear even with life-support.

[Acid_Burn9]

14 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I somehow disagree, I want the possibility of starting with unmanned launches, but I also want the possibility of forgoing rockets and starting with rocket planes (or airships, why not?), there are many different way on how a space program can be started, launching Sputnik it's just one of them.

Yes i think, i should've elaborated, that i was talking about the missions that are at least "get to orbit" complex. Of course nothing should stop you from strapping a chair on the rocket as soon as you start your game. And very good point about planes. I would really like to see the planes being available from the start. Getting to space before being able to build a biplane? Nonsense!

Edited July 2, 2020 by Acid_Burn9

[Acid_Burn9]

19 minutes ago, Master39 said:

life support isn't all about consumables, a big part of that is keeping people alive in a hostile environment and keeping them sane when traveling for months in a tin can.

Very much true. That's why i said

48 minutes ago, Acid_Burn9 said:

Importance of sending unmanned survey missions also benefits from presence of life support, because of ability to measure the temperature/radiation levels/gravity/composition of the atmosphere, in order to use that data to understand, can Kerbals survive there and which type of life-support will they need.

 

[shdwlrd]

I'm in the boat where if LS is a chore to implement and keep up with, I don't want it.

I really do like the fact that you can have automatic logistics for resources and such. Manual logistics was the biggest reason I'm opposed to stock LS. 

Other reason I'm opposed to stock LS is the dire consequences if you don't make sure you're on top of it. I really didn't like it when I tanked a mission or killed my kerbals just because I didn't have enough power or space. When they said that you'll only have efficiency and performance decreases if you don't keep up on the LS, that made me happy.

Now if they create a good planning tool for LS, I wouldn't have much of an issue of including a stock LS system in the game.

I do understand the need for LS to grow and maintain a colony, but the requirement to always monitor the LS condition always was a no for me. If it was a part of the game, (Surviving Mars, Oxygen not Included) I can understand the need. But KSP was exploring the solar system, not making sure you have enough supplies for your personnel to survive.

Now that they say that LS will be easy, I'm beginning to change my mind. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by shdwlrd

[Starhelperdude]

I think LS will only be needed at colonies for kerbals to be ''more of them'', and I know, Boom events also influence them, but why not both? Also, I like to play with LS in ksp, but I don't like sitting in a centrifuge for possilby hundrets of years or more to go to another star, so I thing in ksp2 (stock), there should only be some kind of life support for colonies and stuff

[fizy45]

Options give us options to tweak it and just like diffuculty settgins in KSP and it will be fine.

For those who dont care they can just shut it down.
For those who wanna try it out and have fun can play around with bonuses.
For those who really wants to enjoy it well they can put the silder all the way to right and live the real experience.

Edited July 4, 2020 by fizy45

[Kaerbanogue]

I was not into LS until I read this post. What OP says is very important, in fact I don't see KSP 2 not having such features right now. And I want to point that what he's talking about should belong to the Aventure mode and should be togettable difficulty options in Sandbox mode.

First it's clear that Nate loves mods and some of the mods we know in KSP will be stock in KSP 2 (PlanetShine or Transfer Window Planner for exemple). We can expect Nate to know about Zee's "Probes Before Crew" mod or at least be aware that manned missions being easier than probes missions is an issue for a lot of players (for science and career modes). So it's not too crazy to think that probes vs manned missions difficulty could be rebalanced in KSP2.

Having LS in spacecraft is a good way to balance interstellar trips because if I don't need to worry about communication, electricity management, life support and if I can do EVAs and plant flags, why should I even think about sending a probe mission instead? It wouldn't be realistic and not appealing in terms of gameplay. 

Lastly, sending science missions to know about planets and to update the Tracking station would give a real purpose to the science parts, that we already know are featured in KSP2. And for (I can't stress that enough) the Aventure mode, it would be stange to able to see and check all the informations for every planets from the startup. That's why I think what OP says make sense.

[Guest]

On 7/2/2020 at 12:47 PM, Acid_Burn9 said:

The major disagreement between these two groups lies in will life support be too complex to have.

This is incorrect.

Most of us in the LS skeptic community aren’t worried about complexity. We’re worried about tedium. Flying routine supply missions to outposts gets tedious really fast. If LS is present and there is no way to automate away resupply, mid to late game will turn into a mind-numbing grind of milk run after milk run.

We’re also skeptical about the gameplay possibilities of LS. In what ways will it make the game more interesting or more fun to play? Just adding dry mass is not very interesting or fun. Once again, LS needs supporting mechanics to make it interesting and fun.

I’m no longer categorically opposed to LS, but if both of these pitfalls aren’t well addressed, I still prefer no LS. Whether it works or not all hangs on the supporting mechanics. This is a game after all: it’s supposed to be an enjoyable way to pass your time, not a chore.

[fragtzack]

The way Snacks! mod does life support is best IMO. Light weight, simple, the "milk runs" as mentioned above is not too bad because of the parts put in place to generate Snacks via ISRU and also recycling. I tried the other life support mod, but then discovered Snacks! is way better for "game" play if not as realistic.

 

 Think the most important thing about KSP2 life support is the ability to turn off that feature completely in a difficulty settings manner. Life support seems to much to ask of new players at the start when just getting the hang of orbital mechanics.

 

[Nemozini]

If you role play as a governmental space agency.

You could design and test a rocket to resupply. After a successful resupply mission done by you only once. You could then offload it to Elon Kerman's SpaceK commercial company in the desert launch site for $.

If career mode is well balanced, then you will have to choose to abandon vehicles or stations to balance your finances.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Nemozini

[Lord Aurelius]

I personally think life support is as essential to the core game balance as EC is, as described at length in the OP. However I do agree that any life support implementation needs to find a way to avoid tedium or it just becomes annoying.

Some good news on that front, in the recent PC Gamer article linked in another thread the devs specifically addressed this and said it would be possible to automate supply runs after you've done it at least once yourself.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, fragtzack said:

Think the most important thing about KSP2 life support is the ability to turn off that feature completely in a difficulty settings manner.

I disagree. For LS to be worthwhile it needs to be fully integrated into the other gameplay mechanics present. Making it optional would require these other mechanics to be designed to work with or without it. This would necessarily mean shallower, less interesting systems.

If it’s not good enough to be fun for everyone, it shouldn’t be in at all.

 

[Bej Kerman]

29 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

17 hours ago, fragtzack said:

Think the most important thing about KSP2 life support is the ability to turn off that feature completely in a difficulty settings manner.

I disagree. For LS to be worthwhile it needs to be fully integrated into the other gameplay mechanics present. Making it optional would require these other mechanics to be designed to work with or without it. This would necessarily mean shallower, less interesting systems.

If it’s not good enough to be fun for everyone, it shouldn’t be in at all.

Still should be optional.

[Lord Aurelius]

On the topic of making life support optional, I support this in sandbox mode and custom game modes where you fine tune the game settings to your liking even if it throws the balance off. However, like has been mentioned life support is a critical balancing mechanic for manned missions, so it (and comm networks) should be enabled by default when you pick one of the standard difficulty options. This also means the game should have some tutorial contracts/missions/whatever to show the players upfront that they need to pay attention to these things rather than giving them a nasty surprise later.

[Okhin]

I've read somewhere in the forum that there will be some automation available for supply run (run it once, then it can be automated), which makes the chores of LS for colonies simply disappear. Even with dedicated resources, once you've made one supply run, the problem is solved. Big habitation module (and well, the Hitchhiker module fit that description for me) will probably come with some resource processor integrated. Why ? Because if they do not, you will have to add them systematically to make it functional, so you might as well integrate it to the concerned parts.

Same goes for the Command Module. It is assumed they have some oxygen included. Or that Kerbal don't breathe (but they do not generate waste either, so no need for waste management). I mean, you can abstract most of the LS system for short term mission. I mean, Apollo and Soyuz capsule all had some oxygen included, as well as some waste management and food processors of some kind. It's just included in the pods (the mk-1 and the Onion family one in game). For everything in Kerbin SOI, you do not really need LS system anyway, most of the trips are under one month, it's at most a few kilograms of stuff that can be abstracted in the total weight of the pods and/or the Kerbal.

When people wants LS, it is to maintain long term to permanent settlements. To have a challenge to build those, and maintain them. Most of the maintenance can be automated away: you've demonstrated your ability to do the supply run once, no need to do it again and again, it can become a simple tick converting funds into sustainability of your space station over time. If you want to manage roads of supply run, with an interstellar FedEx system connecting all you space station with an insane amount of logistics, then you'll have a game that will be more focused on logistics than it is on problem solving and building fun rocket to fly crazy missions toward Jool with only a command chair.

You can probably get away with it with a Supply resources and/or habitat part that include some sort of ISRU/waste recycling/plant growth/space cows. But I'm not sure to understand what are the game mechanics added to the game by just one resources (I mean, we already have a lot of fuel, science points and stuff to manage, do we really want one more resources that can be abstracted away?). The Supply resource could also abstract maintenance costs. Because there won't be micro-meteorit either, and all parts will probably never break. And if it is, engineers have magic pocket containing all the needed part anyway. But then you need to add a new game mechanic of part consumption degradation of engines and system, parts breaking, and stuff.

However, beside the logistics system, one part of the LS that I'd like to see more, is the mood of the kerbal. Are they connected to their home somehow? Do they enjoy the place they live? Do they want to go home? Do they feel lonely? Instead of delivering Supplies, you'll manage crew rotation (and will be able to build stories around relationship between said kerbals), which is globally the same (instead of sending a pod full of Supply you send a pod full of Kerbal, each of them carrying what they need). You will need different kind of Kerbal for some task (sitting alone for years in a pod to get around Jool, would require some personality traits for instance, or to have a connection to some habitats somehow).

Cramped kerbals could work a bit less effectively. Lonely kerbals would require friends, or to get back home once in a while. Or a change of scenery. This can be done by having bunks in habutation module. Consuming EC to maintain the Kerbal entertained. Requiring some level of connection. All of that already game mechanics present in KSP. It will make Stock requiring to develop a bit more a communication network across the Kerbol system, and across the star It will require to probably setup some gateway station where kerbal sent on mission on outpost can have some R&R.

It can make pressure on long term exploration mission done with one kerbal alone (and only its HAL system to talk to), and helps with the "it's a fun and big adventure, not a logistics nightmare" thing that I like with KSP. It does not requires a new ressources that can be abstracted anyway, while giving volume to your individual Kerbals. With a potential of a lot more story telling than just shoveling Supply run in space, while Kerbals waits strapping on their chair, doing almost nothing.

I do not need a Life support system based on yet another resource to manage. I need one that makes my Kerbal alive, develop personality quirks, develop relation ships, going on strike and having party when they're finally back on Kerbin.

[afafsa]

I think the best way to keep life support simple, regardless of how it is implemented, is just to build a superb mission planner. You tell it what you are trying to do and it tells you exactly what parameters you're going to have to design and where you are falling short.

For instance, I create a mission titled "Odyssey III" and set the parameter "3 kerbal round-trip to Duna," select "Next Hohmann transfer window" and it gives me the following parameters:

- Mission duration

- (Kerbin departure date / Duna departure date / Kerbin arrival date)

- Delta-V requirements

- Life support requirements

Then I can design a transfer vehicle, lander, and habitation model and assign them to each phase of the mission, checking them against delta-V and life support requirements in the mission planner. Finally, I can assign launchers to each component and check their delta-V requirements, possibly going so far as to set launch dates, rendezvous windows, landing sites, etc. if I wanted to go that far. You know, like a space program.

Just build the tools to take the math and guesswork out of mission planning, introduce them to the concepts gradually, and I doubt the average player would be all that intimidated by having to deal with things like oxygen, water, or living space.

[Lord Aurelius]

34 minutes ago, afafsa said:

I think the best way to keep life support simple, regardless of how it is implemented, is just to build a superb mission planner. You tell it what you are trying to do and it tells you exactly what parameters you're going to have to design and where you are falling short.

For instance, I create a mission titled "Odyssey III" and set the parameter "3 kerbal round-trip to Duna," select "Next Hohmann transfer window" and it gives me the following parameters:

- Mission duration

- (Kerbin departure date / Duna departure date / Kerbin arrival date)

- Delta-V requirements

- Life support requirements

Then I can design a transfer vehicle, lander, and habitation model and assign them to each phase of the mission, checking them against delta-V and life support requirements in the mission planner. Finally, I can assign launchers to each component and check their delta-V requirements, possibly going so far as to set launch dates, rendezvous windows, landing sites, etc. if I wanted to go that far. You know, like a space program.

Just build the tools to take the math and guesswork out of mission planning, introduce them to the concepts gradually, and I doubt the average player would be all that intimidated by having to deal with things like oxygen, water, or living space.

I've long thought the same thing, that KSP needs a proper mission planner. In addition to what you've already described, I can see it also automatically creating maneuver nodes to use in flight, providing KAC type functionality and even limited automatic maneuver node execution, and generally providing an outline of the mission instead of players needing to calculate and track everything outside of the game.

[afafsa]

56 minutes ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I've long thought the same thing, that KSP needs a proper mission planner. In addition to what you've already described, I can see it also automatically creating maneuver nodes to use in flight, providing KAC type functionality and even limited automatic maneuver node execution, and generally providing an outline of the mission instead of players needing to calculate and track everything outside of the game.

Yeah, exactly. I wrote up something earlier on how a progression system could gradually unlock tools to accomplish things like orbital ascent, hohmann transfers, orbital rendezvous, landings, etc. as the player proved they could do each task. Pair a system like that with a powerful mission planner and you basically take all the monotony out of the game to focus on the fun stuff: engineering and exploration.

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by afafsa

[magnemoe]

On 7/2/2020 at 1:22 PM, Acid_Burn9 said:

Yes i think, i should've elaborated, that i was talking about the missions that are at least "get to orbit" complex. Of course nothing should stop you from strapping a chair on the rocket as soon as you start your game. And very good point about planes. I would really like to see the planes being available from the start. Getting to space before being able to build a biplane? Nonsense!

For an getting into orbit mission I don't think you need an real life support system outside that in the capsule. 
If you go to the Mun or worse Minmus you need to add more resources. 

I kind of like TAC, it has three resources, food, oxygen and water, if you add 1 ton weight you can recycle water and air, reducing use to 1/8 for up to 8 kerbals I think. 
This is an nice option for larger ships or bases on long missions. With mods you can also have greenhouses producing food but this consumes water, water use is still less than food an you might be able to mine ice, ice is unrealistic rare I say. 

Now you could simplify this removing air and water requirements. if you have methane and oxygen in your tanks you have oxygen and could burn methane for water, that would not work for ships without chemical engines but is an process probably simpler than water recycling. 
On long missions food it the bottleneck and the one thing who is hardest to produce as you need heavy and bulky greenhouses, in short you need to get colony greenhouses up and running before you run out of food unless you get resupply who also takes time. 
Now you could simply have the kerbals starting hibernating until they get food again so this would require an rescue mission. (Yes its an way to cheat here if you have probe control over ship, yes you can fix that too)

 

[mattinoz]

20 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I personally think life support is as essential to the core game balance as EC is, as described at length in the OP. However I do agree that any life support implementation needs to find a way to avoid tedium or it just becomes annoying.

Some good news on that front, in the recent PC Gamer article linked in another thread the devs specifically addressed this and said it would be possible to automate supply runs after you've done it at least once yourself.

 

To me LS should be about Kerbals and what they can do or can't because they are hungry. Life support isn't so much a direct resource like a part but potential work like EC. Overload the supply and thing stop working but don't break they just recover a demand drops.

If it was me I'd design life support the same way as EC. KC or KE each Kerbal has energy it trickles down if they do interesting things, it stays pretty stable if they don't on the assumption they eat, drink and generally take care of themselves if the situation allows. As others have said parts should generally be considered as fit for purpose with a stock of supplies like they have EC. If Kerbals can't take care of themselves like on a space walk it kicks back in as an issue.

So the mechanic is always there but ramps up as you do more interesting things but always solvable by a logical solution or the kerbal way because we will always find the Kerbal way.

Simple mechanic then allows lots of other systems stock or mod to interact to make it as complex and as trivial as the player would like. Plus one very simple control to turn it off (no drain, no pain). Bonus those systems don't even need to know about each other just the core mechanic.

Because its about the Kerbals you can then adjust based on factors on the Kerbals - Training, Health, Interest. Mods can go nuts on adding detail and realism if they want.   Also oddly you don't need to micro-manage groups as colonies would produce an excess of KE which would translate to product up the supply of KE and production will speed up.

 

 

[Acid_Burn9]

On 7/4/2020 at 11:31 PM, Brikoleur said:

Most of us in the LS skeptic community aren’t worried about complexity. We’re worried about tedium. Flying routine supply missions to outposts gets tedious really fast. If LS is present and there is no way to automate away resupply, mid to late game will turn into a mind-numbing grind of milk run after milk run.

The automated supply routes, once you complete supply mission once, are literally confirmed in KSP 2. Read PC Gamer article.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Acid_Burn9