No life support in KSP2

[Jack Mcslay]

KSP is known for it's challenges way more than being truest to real life space exploration, and life support would completely kill minimalist challenges that often times rely on strapping a command chair to a rocket

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Jack Mcslay said:

KSP is known for it's challenges way more than being truest to real life space exploration, and life support would completely kill minimalist challenges that often times rely on strapping a command chair to a rocket

We've had a number of long conversations about LS on the board in the past and the biggest thing to note is that LS doesn't need to be lethal, nor should it be in my opinion. By the time we get to 1.0 there could be lots of things related to science and resource collection that could be affected by hungry, unhappy kerbals but wouldn't kill all these other ways of playing. If thats what Nate means when he says "no life support", thats fine. If however they've decided to not do snacks or any kind of 'LS-lite' kind of application I think its a huge missed opportunity. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Dantheollie]

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

If however they've decided to not do snacks or any kind of 'LS-lite' kind of application I think its a huge missed opportunity. 

Perhaps I am experiencing the Mandela effect, but I could have sworn that the developers made a mention of snacks at some point in the past.

I think too much forum browsing over the years has turned my brain into mush 

[Pthigrivi]

2 minutes ago, Dantheollie said:

Perhaps I am experiencing the Mandela effect, but I could have sworn that the developers made a mention of snacks at some point in the past.

I think too much forum browsing over the years has turned my brain into mush 

Thats the funny thing, they've mentioned them a LOT, like kind of a weird amount for it just to be a canon idea rather than an actual part of gameplay.  They even say in one of the tutorials you'll need a lot of snacks if you want to be in orbit a long time. Maybe its just a joke though?

Edited April 3, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Dantheollie]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

Thats the funny thing, they've mentioned them a LOT, like kind of a weird amount for it just to be a cannon idea rather than an actual part of gameplay. 

If so, I think we might be getting too ahead of ourselves. There may still be a chance that this Snack LS-lite comes to fruition by the time the Colonies update rolls around. Perhaps the developers defined life support too firmly for the AMA

[RocketRockington]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Thats the funny thing, they've mentioned them a LOT, like kind of a weird amount for it just to be a canon idea rather than an actual part of gameplay.  They even say in one of the tutorials you'll need a lot of snacks if you want to be in orbit a long time. Maybe its just a joke though?

Snacks were a running joke in KSP1 that also had no LS.  It's just an easy, silly gag.  I wouldn't read anything into it.

[Pthigrivi]

42 minutes ago, RocketRockington said:

Snacks were a running joke in KSP1 that also had no LS.  It's just an easy, silly gag.  I wouldn't read anything into it.

Yeah totally possible. Im still holding out some hope they mean 'no life support' as in 'nothing that will kill your kerbals if you don't have it' but some other mechanic is still under consideration.

[VlonaldKerman]

26 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah totally possible. Im still holding out some hope they mean 'no life support' as in 'nothing that will kill your kerbals if you don't have it' but some other mechanic is still under consideration.

I think they’ll have some sort of LS functionality for colonies but not sure about vessels. They’ll probably leave that up to modders.

Edited April 3, 2023 by VlonaldKerman

[RocketRockington]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah totally possible. Im still holding out some hope they mean 'no life support' as in 'nothing that will kill your kerbals if you don't have it' but some other mechanic is still under consideration.

Edited because I was just saying what @VlonaldKermandid.  Agree with their statement.

Edited April 3, 2023 by RocketRockington

[Jack Mcslay]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

We've had a number of long conversations about LS on the board in the past and the biggest thing to note is that LS doesn't need to be lethal, nor should it be in my opinion. By the time we get to 1.0 there could be lots of things related to science and resource collection that could be affected by hungry, unhappy kerbals but wouldn't kill all these other ways of playing. If thats what Nate means when he says "no life support", thats fine. If however they've decided to not do snacks or any kind of 'LS-lite' kind of application I think its a huge missed opportunity. 

Supplies would be a much more logical approach to such a feature, it's much more intuitive to say the engineers and scientists aren't working very effectively because they don't have the necessary materials than them being hungry just causes them to get grumpy

[theJesuit]

Life Support... first DLC

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 3/28/2023 at 10:14 AM, Rosten said:

Life support would be an annoyance and I have no idea why people keep wanting annoyances in games.  It's basically asking for timed missions.  How many people like timed segments in games?

Life support is a hugely important aspect of RL spaceflight, and has all sorts of gameplay potential. , impacting everything from mission planning to ship design to piloting.  It’s as big an omission as re-entry heating… which could also be characterized as an annoyance.

17 hours ago, Jack Mcslay said:

KSP is known for it's challenges way more than being truest to real life space exploration, and life support would completely kill minimalist challenges that often times rely on strapping a command chair to a rocket

I fail to see this as a problem.  In fact, I’d see it as an absolute win.  I like to have a couple of empty seats per Kerbal when going beyond Minmus, just to give them an approximation of living space.  But I wouldn’t presume to dictate how others play, so making life support toggleable, would let us have both…

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Life support is a hugely important aspect of RL spaceflight, and has all sorts of gameplay potential. , impacting everything from mission planning to ship design to piloting.  It’s as big an omission as re-entry heating… which could also be characterized as an annoyance.

I fail to see this as a problem.  In fact, I’d see it as an absolute win.  I like to have a couple of empty seats per Kerbal when going beyond Minmus, just to give them an approximation of living space.  But I wouldn’t presume to dictate how others play, so making life support toggleable, would let us have both…

I like to have at least one empty seat in case a rescue contact for the destination pops up en route.  When you look at the cost of a hire vs gaining a team member via rescue it is a no brainer strategy, especially early game. 

An alternative is to always have a klaw or engineer aboard, plus enough extra parachute, to be able to bring the rescued command pod back also (thus providing the extra seat).  Even when the contract doesn't call for being the pod back also.

Of course in the latter case one has to guess on the extra chutes as one doesn't know yet how much heavier it will be if a contract comes up.  But one can aero brake and burn into a stable LKO and deliver/install extra chutes as required

[PDCWolf]

That AMA killed the game for me and this was probably one of the most relevant bits to that.

If you combine the lack of life support with what's been said about colonies... A completely abstract, pointless "logistics" layers of seeing numbers move around to unlock 1 resource to unlock a part or another. That's depressing and a waste of potential. Add to that the fact that for now the only confirmed (as per the AMA) way to build up colonies is the "colonies VAB" interface where you click to make buildings appear... yikes. It's like they really want modders to make the game.

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

On 3/26/2023 at 6:07 AM, alphaprior said:

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?

Just download the mods when they release. or if you want to be really proactive, make some. That's all i can say

[pandaman]

47 minutes ago, DAFATRONALDO2007 IN SPACE said:

Just download the mods when they release. or if you want to be really proactive, make some. That's all i can say

With respect, I have always found 'There's a Mod for that' to be a bit of a brush off answer.

I would much rather key features, of which I consider LS to be one (along with Transfer/Mission Planner, Alarm Clock, Docking Alignment, decent Dv and TWR tools and information amongt others) be stock features.  (Note, all of these features were also lacking in stock KSP1 for way too long.)

Sure, mods are a brilliant option, or will be,  (for most players), and may work differently to any stock implementations, so may be preferable to some.

But I remember the typical and numerous complaints whenever KSP1 updated that it was 'unplayable' until certain mods had been updated, with NO guarantee that they ever would be, or would even work reliably if they were. 

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

Just now, pandaman said:

With respect, I have always found 'There's a Mod for that' to be a bit of a brush off answer.

I would much rather key features, of which I consider LS to be one (along with Transfer/Mission Planner, Alarm Clock, Docking Alignment, decent Dv and TWR tools and information amongt others) be stock features.  (Note, all of these features were also lacking in stock KSP1 for way too long.)

Sure, mods are a brilliant option, or will be,  (for most players), and may work differently to any stock implementations, so may be preferable to some.

But I remember the typical and numerous complaints whenever KSP1 updated that it was 'unplayable' until certain mods had been updated, with NO guarantee that they ever would be, or would even work reliably if they were. 

talk to nate about it

[pandaman]

18 minutes ago, DAFATRONALDO2007 IN SPACE said:

talk to nate about it

Hopefully he and the team will read this and similar threads and reconsider their current position.  But I will respect their decisions whether I agree wilth them or not, it's their product after all.

[DerkyJerkyWreaksHavoc]

@Nate Simpson 

1 minute ago, pandaman said:

Hopefully he and the team will read this and similar threads and reconsider their current position.  But I will respect their decisions whether I agree wilth them or not, it's their product after all.

Here, i will get the convo between you and him. All great suggestions should be invested with the courage to push forward!

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

That AMA killed the game for me and this was probably one of the most relevant bits to that.

If you combine the lack of life support with what's been said about colonies... A completely abstract, pointless "logistics" layers of seeing numbers move around to unlock 1 resource to unlock a part or another. That's depressing and a waste of potential. Add to that the fact that for now the only confirmed (as per the AMA) way to build up colonies is the "colonies VAB" interface where you click to make buildings appear... yikes. It's like they really want modders to make the game.

Honestly this was the only real point of disappointment for me. I've always thought supply runs are much easier to manage if they're virtual rather than physically modeled, and building colonies the same way we build vessels in the VAB makes all kinds of sense. Having a basic kind of snacks system is pretty different though, and really could get to the heart of understanding how living off the land on other planets would work in the same simplified way most of KSP's best mechanics do.

[Dantheollie]

Things get really strange here because I can't imagine a list of colony parts that doesn't include a greenhouse. Would they really release a colonization system and not include a greenhouse module? Are colonies going to consist of only habitation and resource extraction modules? Seems quite bland 

[AtomicTech]

On 3/26/2023 at 5:07 AM, alphaprior said:

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?

I think having electricity requirements for keeping crew alive would be a great addition!

[adsii1970]

5 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

I think having electricity requirements for keeping crew alive would be a great addition!

This is really a given. Every spacecraft has to have electricity to function anyway. Even in KSP1.

Believe me, as often as I have forgotten solar panels, batteries, or even backup nukes when I have launched those far-flung probes and crewed crafts, I lost control when the power ran out. So, in a very real way, your craft do have to have power to function. Otherwise, your crew will be drifting with no control.

Unless you're like me and you feel sorry for those little green guys and gals!

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Honestly this was the only real point of disappointment for me. I've always thought supply runs are much easier to manage if they're virtual rather than physically modeled, and building colonies the same way we build vessels in the VAB makes all kinds of sense. Having a basic kind of snacks system is pretty different though, and really could get to the heart of understanding how living off the land on other planets would work in the same simplified way most of KSP's best mechanics do.

Easier to manage sure, but why not

1. Let me build the colony manually too, even if just partly or optionally, specially for nearby settlements like the Mun or Minmus where launching to is cheap, plus it provides proper practice for precision landings.
2. Designing the colonies IN the VAB is one thing, building FROM a landed "VAB" makes zero sense. You deliver the building and maybe a couple parts and just assemble anything from that? That's exactly the opposite of how it's planned to work in real life (if you ignore all the magic 3d printer/self-assembly-robots talk). It also means you need to mind your landing place, to make future landings not impossible.
3. Supply runs should not be magic. At least task me with designing the ships and having a supply of fuel available for them. Maybe even design the routes to balance speed vs fuel vs life support of people on board lmao.

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

This is really a given. Every spacecraft has to have electricity to function anyway. Even in KSP1.

Believe me, as often as I have forgotten solar panels, batteries, or even backup nukes when I have launched those far-flung probes and crewed crafts, I lost control when the power ran out. So, in a very real way, your craft do have to have power to function. Otherwise, your crew will be drifting with no control.

Unless you're like me and you feel sorry for those little green guys and gals!

 If you've got a kerbal on board, you can do anything without electricity, except for transmitting science. The only real victim is probes, which almost nobody uses outside of roleplay on account of  Kerballed flight having no barriers like life support or proper comms.

[Bej Kerman]

On 3/27/2023 at 7:56 AM, 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. 

Yes.

The appeal behind modding is alien to me. "Just mod the game if you want x" sucks as an answer to anything precisely because of this fact.

6 hours ago, DAFATRONALDO2007 IN SPACE said:

Just download the mods when they release. or if you want to be really proactive, make some. That's all i can say

What I and Pandaman said.

On 3/26/2023 at 11:07 AM, alphaprior said:

Unfortunatelly Nate stated in AMA there will be no life support as they don't think it improves the game.

Is there a transcript of the AMA? I can't help but feel there was a specific answer here only half of us are bothered finding, and that "no life support" is a ridiculous oversimplification of what was actually said. Because, to be frank, that's hardly a good or precise answer for an AMA.