No life support in KSP2

[alphaprior]

Unfortunatelly Nate stated in AMA there will be no life support as they don't think it improves the game.
Which I disagree. It would make the game more realistic and little more difficult. Anyone who tried life support mods in KSP1 knows that.
Kerbals need oxygen, food and water, it's another factor you have to take into account when you design ships and missions. 
You have to load extra weight proponent to mission length. And of course psychological effect on Kerbals for long mission, boredom, sadness, madness...
Surely this would make the game very complicate for developers on top of all they have already.

I expect mods would cover life support like USI in KSP1 but it would be great if there was life support in game. Maybe a DLC?

Who agrees?

[uglyduckling81]

Oxygen and consumables is enough. 

No need for food and water, as they are essentially the same thing. 

I don't think the boredom is needed. I play with Kerbalism and it has those mechanics. I think those are good for mods but would be too much for most players. 

I think saying Kerbals are resilient to these things is fine. If they run out of air or consumables in stock they should go into hibernation, which can't control the craft or anything. Creates a rescue mission for your game. They would be good emerging gameplay. 

[pandaman]

I'm a little surprised LS is not on the plan.

I was hoping for a rudimentary implementation in stock at least. With difficulty settings and/or on off toggles of course.

It's certainly something I think should be represented in some way.  But still...  

Edited March 27, 2023 by pandaman

[RocketRockington]

Considering how few features are in KSP2 as it stands, and how long their road is to finishing the roadmap, worrying about features that didn't make it into the plan for 1.0 is kinda moot I'd say.  By the time 1.0 comes around, they'll have had a chance to rethink many decisions.   Or modders will just add it, if KSP2 is popular enough.  That said - I don't think KSP2 is selling well enough to put much stock in the long term future..  Better to just enjoy what's there.

[LoSBoL]

I can get into the reason why they say it might not be fun to have lifesupport for the majority of players. Seeing the scope of what they intend to put in the game it's going to be challenging to master on its own, which lifesupport could make it harder and questionable if that would entail 'fun' for many. 

I wouldn't mind if they put something like a 'snacks' implementation in KSP2, but would definitely make it toggleable so you can choose to challenge yourself further, or not. 

[Vl3d]

I feel like there's an expectation that modders will add everything and will basically build KSP2 for free. That seems to be the business plan. No life support, no weather.. even the "delivery routes" will be just numbers incremented periodically.

[alphaprior]

Some basic life support should be in the game and modders could expand it. 
It's not realistic to leave Kerbals waiting on a desolate environment and they survive as long it takes for you to pick up them.
Same for interstellar missions considering they will last years or decades, some LS and hibernation as stated above would be cool.
And yes if some players find it too challenging they can turn it off.

As for other stuff like weather and the delivery routes which is dissapointing Nate said they might implement a realistic method in future.
I can understand that KSP2 is a next level game 10yrs later after KSP1 and they want to do build something much better but it seems to be very hard and complicate.
They create a small universe with impossible calculations way too complex than anything I've seen in a game so far.
So I can understand the game won't be so good for a while and even at 1.0 but hopefully it will be 10 times better than KSP1 over time.

[Angelo Kerman]

My guess is that given how much KSP 2 has already been modded, it's only a matter of time before someone adds a life support mod to the game. Personally it's something that I'd make and add into my game once 1) official mod support is available and 2) resources are in game. For a Snacks 2, I'd add the ability to enable/disable Snacks, Fresh Air, and Stress from in-game- and maybe some kind of cryostatis system as well. It would be nice to tap into the planned automated transfer system to do a kind of Kerbal DoorDash.

[HenryBlatbugIII]

Yeah, life support will definitely be modded in at some point.  However, I'm definitely disappointed that they aren't going to be including it in the base game, especially after it was explicitly mentioned in the Early Access release announcement (~10:45 in this video).  I'd prefer a well-integrated and balanced system rather than sorting through dozens of mods looking for one with good quality and the "right" complexity level.

Just a Snacks resource would be enough for stock, letting people mod in air, radiation, sanity, etc. if they want them.  I only want a reason (other than roleplaying) to bring more than a 1-seat pod on a long mission.

[Strawberry]

Personally I dont really care if they dont introduce life support for ships, id like to see it but I wouldnt cry about it. I do however, very much hope they implement it for colonies (in specific when resources arrive), as itd lead to much more interesting trade routes and make planetary colonization much more interesting.

[Buzz313th]

Finish the roadmap with a seriously robust and capable Mod API on top of a rock solid stable platform.  The modders will extend the longevity of the game way past the roadmap.    The devs just need to focus of the foundation.

[mattinoz]

The most disappointing thing about this is that with out a base game mechanic to act as a starting point we'll end up the same as KSP with thousands of close but not compatible LS mods so adding one LS factor would require a whole LS system in the mod to build that factor on. 

If the game had a basic mechanic like USI-LS (picked at random as author is part of dev team but not sure he's alone as KSP dev team members who've written an LS mod) then at the very least we need to factor in enough mass for supplies as part of our designs. We get simple trade offs about speed to get there, how long to stay, how many crew to take. etc...  other simple mass trade off items like recycling to save weight. 

If base LS in place Someone wants to expand that then at least the leavers to pull in the mod are in place and another mod could pull the same leaver for another reason. Without it each builds a potential conflicting leaver or tries to pull the other ones leaver. ie. You could build a radiation exposure or health mod that triggered behaviour or lack of productivity as the low supplies state, instead of creating a whole new behaviour. 

[RocketRockington]

38 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

The most disappointing thing about this is that with out a base game mechanic to act as a starting point we'll end up the same as KSP with thousands of close but not compatible LS mods so adding one LS factor would require a whole LS system in the mod to build that factor on. 

The game is clearly less about interesting and improved systems, and more about graphics and whatever glitzy feature they could hype people up for.   Which is pretty much par for the course when one of the bigger mainstream publisher gets its hands on an IP.

[cocoscacao]

While I ain't happy about some of the development, LS adds complexity a lot of players don't want. Plus, it isn't very noob friendly. None of us started with it from day one. I'm fine if it's added as a mod.

Edited March 27, 2023 by cocoscacao

[LoSBoL]

11 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

The game is clearly less about interesting and improved systems, and more about graphics and whatever glitzy feature they could hype people up for.   Which is pretty much par for the course when one of the bigger mainstream publisher gets its hands on an IP.

I don't agree, seeing what this big mainstream publisher has done with KSP since they got their hands on it, they basically changed the development direction of squad and turned the geeky figure it out yourself space simulator into a game which is currently KSP. They funded development for over 4 years after they took over, not for the love of the game, but to sell it to a broader market, which they succeeded at. 

They are doing the same with KSP2, prognossing a decade of support and updates, which not only keeps the current player base interested, but to expand the game into a worthy successor of KSP. Yes, it's a mess right now, but I'm certain it will get better. Why? Money, they need to sell this game, which they will when they game and the development proving itself.

[ondrafialka]

11 hours ago, HenryBlatbugIII said:

Just a Snacks resource would be enough for stock, letting people mod in air, radiation, sanity, etc. if they want them.  I only want a reason (other than roleplaying) to bring more than a 1-seat pod on a long mission.

I also use the roleplaying approach. Sending one Kerbal pod to other planets just feels very wrong to me. I understand other players may have different styles and sending a Kerbal on an external chair to a whole system grand tour is exactly what they want :)
For me, KSP 1 in not ballanced in the aspect of manned vs unmanned. You can go to other planets with one Kerbal very early on in the carrer mode, but robotic exploration requires you to have strong relays and build relay networks... You can switch off the need to have relay networks, and analogically I would like to have a very basic LS which you can switch off if you want to.

[RocketRockington]

1 hour ago, LoSBoL said:

They are doing the same with KSP2, prognossing a decade of support and updates, which not only keeps the current player base interested, but to expand the game into a worthy successor of KSP. Yes, it's a mess right now, but I'm certain it will get better. Why? Money, they need to sell this game, which they will when they game and the development proving itself.

I wouldn't count your chickens before their hatched.  T2 supported Squad for 4 years because
- They operated on a shoe string budget - mostly cheap devs working in mexico city or remote, and a small team.
- KSP1 was still selling copies (and made a popular DLC) so it was likely paying for itself.
- They were expecting to release KSP2 sooner, so it was basically just marketting.

Now, the same isn't true for KSP2
- their operating costs are many times higher - a bigger team mostly working on-site in Seattle.
- They're not selling copies (based on the # of new reviews they're getting, sales have cratered)
- They are trying to make a profit off of KSP2 - they're not just running it as marketting for KSP3.

[LoSBoL]

2 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

I wouldn't count your chickens before their hatched.  T2 supported Squad for 4 years because
- They operated on a shoe string budget - mostly cheap devs working in mexico city or remote, and a small team.
- KSP1 was still selling copies (and made a popular DLC) so it was likely paying for itself.
- They were expecting to release KSP2 sooner, so it was basically just marketting.

Now, the same isn't true for KSP2
- their operating costs are many times higher - a bigger team mostly working on-site in Seattle.
- They're not selling copies (based on the # of new reviews they're getting, sales have cratered)
- They are trying to make a profit off of KSP2 - they're not just running it as marketting for KSP3.

KSP did not 'just keep selling copies and made a populair DLC' 

They kept selling copies by expanding the market who to sell it to. The DLC included. They did so by providing tools SQUAD never wanted to, like dv and twr readouts, Steam workshop and saves, transfer windows planners, alarmclock, ground science and robotics. 

KSP2 is not there yet, the reason they already launched it is because of short term revenue, they did so because they assesses that it would not harm long term revenue even with, which they won't if and when the game gets expanded. They are in it for the long haul, just like with KSP, because there is no end in the continuous cashflow for the next 15 to 20 years.

KSP2 like KSP is long term investment with continued revenue, the IP falls perfectly in line with T2's long term vision of continuous cashflow. 

[RocketRockington]

Just now, LoSBoL said:

They kept selling copies by expanding the market who to sell it to. The DLC included. They did so by providing tools SQUAD never wanted to, like dv and twr readouts, Steam workshop and saves, transfer windows planners, alarmclock, ground science and robotics. 

 

What?  Squad added those features.  It wasn't T2 calling the shots.  T2(in the form of Private Division) is just a publisher.  They don't make nitty-gritty decisions like that.

Squad did have some changes in leadership - HarvestR left, some devs left, new devs joined, they got a new lead designer.  Still Squad though.    

4 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

KSP2 is not there yet, the reason they already launched it is because of short term revenue, they did so because they assesses that it would not harm long term revenue even with, which they won't if and when the game gets expanded. They are in it for the long haul, just like with KSP, because there is no end in the continuous cashflow for the next 15 to 20 years.

 

Having a disastrous launch harms long term revenue.  Very few games recover from a disasterous launch.  No Man's Sky is the exception, not the rule

3 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

KSP2 like KSP is long term investment with continued revenue, the IP falls perfectly in line with T2's long term vision of continuous cashflow. 

T2's long term vision of continuous cash flow isn't selling the base game and sporadic DLC.  it's about continuous monetization of cash shop features - is that what you're advocating for KSP2?  That's going to be an unpopular opinion.

Unfortunately KSP2 promised not to even do DLC before reaching 1.0, which seems like its years away at this point.  So they're stuck selling the base game - which, as I said, is selling REALLY badly.

[LoSBoL]

22 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

What?  Squad added those features.  It wasn't T2 calling the shots.  T2(in the form of Private Division) is just a publisher.  They don't make nitty-gritty decisions like that.

Yes they do, they funded development and gave direction in what they needed the game to be. SQUAD 'by itself' didn't get further than some localization to the game to expand the market they'd sell to. There has been a big philosophy change that was becoming gradually more visible with each update since T2 bought the IP, which was to expanding the market they could sell to. 

Start up 1.3.0 and compare it to 1.12 to see where it got from there. 

 

22 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

T2's long term vision of continuous cash flow isn't selling the base game and sporadic DLC.  it's about continuous monetization of cash shop features - is that what you're advocating for KSP2?  That's going to be an unpopular opinion.

Hoe many times do you need to hear 'no microtransactions', they didn't buy the IP for that, they bought it because there is no end in people buying this game, and DLC's like to robotics for years to come. It's a goldmine like KSP was and still is. Because what is everybody that gives a negative review saying? 

Buy KSP instead. Which again brings in revenue. KSP will be selling for a long time next to KSP2. 

 

You need to look at this long term, T2 does. 

Edited March 27, 2023 by LoSBoL

[Kalessin1]

I agree. There should be life support. I already also many times wrote how they could resolve this. Easiest would be options on begin of game.

[RocketRockington]

26 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

Start up 1.3.0 and compare it to 1.12 to see where it got from there. 

The philosophy change was giving the hard core community what they wanted, mostly.  Stuff like robotics and dv readouts are not new-user features. 

Other than increased localization, I'll grant that expanded the player base. 

28 minutes ago, LoSBoL said:

You need to look at this long term, T2 does. 

  If T2 was thinking that long term, they wouldn't have launched it yet.  This launch will be a permanent stain in KSP2s potential. Take2 cancels plenty of games that don't make them money, you're just thinking wishfully that they'll see the value in a very long term play.  They did not expect the terrible launch that happened.  We have direct evidence of this - after seeing how bad things were, they pulled the marketing spend.  You have no evidence to back up your points though, you're just repeating yourself endlessly.

[LoSBoL]

4 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

The philosophy change was giving the hard core community what they wanted, mostly.  Stuff like robotics and dv readouts are not new-user features. 

Yes they are new-user features, which opened up the game to a much, much broader market they were selling to. From the 'figure it out yourself' to 'I'm giving you the tools' to do what you want. 

Look at how the reviews grew on steam after these updates, SQUAD depleted the market they were selling to, T2 expanded that. 

9 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

If T2 was thinking that long term, they wouldn't have launched it yet.  This launch will be a permanent stain in KSP2s potential. 

No it won't, like T2 taking over KSP rousse, the red shell rouse, all forgotten. 

They knew a short term revenue would not harm the long term in the end, because they know they are going to keep selling when they get it right. And in the mean time, while KSP2 is not up for the task, they'll keep selling KSP alongside. 

They bloody hell knew what the state of KSP2 was at launch, you really think that caught them by surprise? No, they did it anyway, bacause of money and knowing what they are prognossing for the future. 

Follow the money, look at the key succes factors of the past and what they are in the future. 

[alphaprior]

Please stay in the topic which is Life Support!

[KSK]

I think concerns about life support being too complex for new players are vastly overstated and, frankly, a bit patronizing.

Life support is not a difficult concept:

• Living crew need resources to stay alive.
• Resource storage is a part that can be added to rocket.
• Resources are consumed and turned into waste.
• Other parts can be added to rocket to recycle waste back into resources. 

That pretty much sums up any life-support model that I've seen for KSP, although they obviously differ in the numbers of resources and waste products being tracked and the number of optional widgets for converting waste back into resources.

Anyone who's ever played any game genre which requires resource management* will have dealt with way more complicated logistic chains than that. And I'd say that some of those genres (crafting and/or survival, for example) are considerably more popular than KSP1 or KSP2, so there's a large pool of potential newbies who wouldn't have any problems with life support at all.

Besides, if there is any doubt about life support being too complicated, then surely that's what the much vaunted tutorial system is for.

TL: DR. If you can remember to bring along a heat shield to avoid burning up on reentry, a parachute to stop you hitting the ground too hard,  batteries and solar panels to keep your spacecraft powered, and whatever propellants you need to make that spacecraft go faster in the right direction,  then I fail to see what's so impossibly hard about bringing along a box of supplies and a recyclowidgetron 3000 (or whatever) to make more supplies. 

 

* and arguably that would include real time strategy games. Mine ore, extract vespene gas, use different quantities of each to make buildings, then use buildings plus different quantities of ore and gas to make troops. Or start with ore and wood and gold. Whatever. The point is, if you can deal with that, I'm pretty damn sure you can deal with a highly abstracted life-support system in KSP.