Kerbal mortality

[VlonaldKerman]

1 hour ago, Infinite Aerospace said:

To be fair I disagree, Kerbalism changed the game for me. To have to actually put something resembling consideration into mission planning (for long duration missions) was refreshing and challenging. There's only so far you can go with a do whatever without suffering consequences.

Yes, I feel the same way. I was referring to Lynera’s suggestion to only implement radiation in limited settings, such as close to a star or behind a nuclear engine, as opposed to as an omnipresent factor to consider in all environments.

[Lyneira]

1 hour ago, VlonaldKerman said:

Yes, I feel the same way. I was referring to Lynera’s suggestion to only implement radiation in limited settings, such as close to a star or behind a nuclear engine, as opposed to as an omnipresent factor to consider in all environments.

I'm not opposed to the idea of radiation as an omnipresent factor, but I've seen some strong opposition to the idea of life support as a "flat tax" on every mission and to harsh consequences like kerbal death for failing to maintain that life support. Omnipresent radiation requiring dedicated shielding components on every crewed mission could amount to the same. So I thought to suggest a scenario that adds it as a danger in specific circumstances to help further differentiate some environments and technologies as dangerous, while also making the danger a direct result of going to a dangerous location or activating a dangerous technology.  That could be the tradeoff for making a harsh consequence like kerbal death an acceptable penalty.

Going further, antimatter harvesting and perhaps other, earlier technologies. plus unique resources and science rewards on a high radiation world can work off of this to give the player incentives to brave and even colonize such a zone despite the danger. That would turn it from niche to an important mid- to late-game mechanic.

Also importantly, this way the process of learning about radiation and how to deal with it can be put off until a later point in the natural progression of the game where it doesn't pile up on top of learning about all the other things that go into early mun and interplanetary missions.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Lyneira

[Strawberry]

Radiation from environments doesnt seem great, you cant as meaningfully design your spacecraft around it as it comes from all angles. Not to mention, the only counterplay against environmental radiation is just to increase the crew modules sliders or however you increase radiation shielding. Radiation from ship parts is great though, as you can design your spacecraft around it and there's multiple sorts of counterplay (either increase distance or use shadow shields), and it opens up interesting scenarios for things like docking

[Lyneira]

6 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

Radiation from environments doesnt seem great, you cant as meaningfully design your spacecraft around it as it comes from all angles. Not to mention, the only counterplay against environmental radiation is just to increase the crew modules sliders or however you increase radiation shielding. Radiation from ship parts is great though, as you can design your spacecraft around it and there's multiple sorts of counterplay (either increase distance or use shadow shields), and it opens up interesting scenarios for things like docking

That is a good point! The radiation coming from ship parts does offer more ways for a player to create their own interesting engineering solutions than omnidirectional radiation.

[Strawberry]

8 minutes ago, Lyneira said:

That is a good point! The radiation coming from ship parts does offer more ways for a player to create their own interesting engineering solutions than omnidirectional radiation.

Ship radiation also serves to add design constraints to the more powerful engines which can help give other engines a leg up for late game, whereas environmental radiation serves to make inner planets more mass expensive to get too, which I dont really see the point of. Inner planets are already very weight heavy to get to thanks to their delta v requirements.  I hope we get ship radiation but I dont see what enviromental radiation would add

Edited August 14, 2023 by Strawberry

[Infinite Aerospace]

10 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

Yes, I feel the same way. I was referring to Lynera’s suggestion to only implement radiation in limited settings, such as close to a star or behind a nuclear engine, as opposed to as an omnipresent factor to consider in all environments.

Apologies I had the impression you were against it in general. But I'd agree with that.