A Sketch for Stock LS

[Pthigrivi]

I've been thinking about this for a while now so I took a few hours yesterday and today putting together a real proposal. I know many of the Devs and players are skeptical but including LS with a depleteable resource like Snacks could be a huge boon to gameplay. I think the reason many are skeptical is that while many of the KSP1 mods were interesting none of them got it exactly right. There are also real pitfalls that must be avoided to make a system that the vast majority of players could learn and enjoy. First, the issues:

1) Life Support is too punishing: This is true of most current mods and causes legitimate angst among many players. Some say its not life support if you aren't risking vessels full of dead or comatose kerbals while the very idea scares off most other players. There is a middle road here though: incorporate life support in a light-hearted way centered on bonuses to science values and mining outputs on normal-default settings and leave more punishing consequences like hybernation and death to higher difficulties or mods. As an additional challenge rather than a constant requirement it becomes something players can dabble in or focus on to max their payouts and can slowly adapt to rather than facing an early difficulty cliff. 

2) Life Support is too complicated: I believe this notion comes from experiences with TAC and to a lesser degree USI which incorporated too many resources and variables and were much too opaque and unpredictable. Life support should be as simple as it can be while still leaving room for creative problem solving. Ideally it would focus on one primary consumable resource. It also requires tools in the engineering report similar to dV readouts which tell players in the VAB how long their LS will last on the fly as they add and subtract parts. It should also remain focused on science and engineering and follow a similar logic to other systems in the game like electricity, engines, and heat. 

3) Life Support doesn't scale well: The real advantage of a consumable LS is that it makes time a more engaging part of the game. Unfortunately it could also cause problems for casual players and those with one-mission-at-a-time playstyles. You need a system that's flexible enough to handle everything from an early game trip to Minmus and back all the way to an interstellar mission. That tells me that LS can't be handled as just tanked Snacks or it becomes a linear mass penalty on longer journeys and the burden stacks up FAST. So you need ways both to generate it and to extend it over decades when need be. 

Below I've sketched out a scheme showing how I think those pitfalls can be avoided and still achieve the things LS really brings to the party: making time a manageable consideration for mission design and making Kerbals and their wellbeing more important to the game. I'll be introducing it as players would be introduced as they get deeper into the game. The scheme takes a lot of influence from known mods like Snacks, Kerbalism and USI but I think it's a smoother synthesis. 

Step 1: KSOI and Snacks

When players first start out the game they're doing short hops, first orbits, and thinking about mounting their first missions to Minmus and the Mun. I don't think they should really need to think about life support at this point because new players will have SO much else to learn and the mass of any stored resource is negligible anyway. But as you start to do slightly longer journeys--perhaps longer stays on Minmus, staffing your first stations and colonies and visiting asteroids we can start introducing the idea of life support and mission time. For simplicity we're going to assume that O2 and water are being 100% recycled by crewed parts and focus on one resource: Snacks. For my numbers I've assumed Kerbals eat a little less than half what a human eats, simplified to 1kg/day for easy math. Having access to air and water each Kerbal can go about 10 days before they start to get hungry, and after that they'll become progressively more and more grumpy over 20 days until they become miserable and lose all bonuses to science collection. They can still fly, still collect samples, but they'll be worth half as much as a happy, fed kerbal would collect. This in a way makes LS the Kerbal analog to Comnet for probe missions--an extra layer of difficulty that helps get the most out of your trip. Players respond strongly to incentives and I think this gives plenty of impetus for exploring the system without heavy handed punishments. 



Step 2: Inner Planets and Rehydrators

Once players have gotten their feet wet around Kerbin and start planning interplanetary trips things get a bit more interesting. They can of course choose to simply add more tanks of snacks, but if they want to save a bit of mass they can also add on a food Rehydrator. For simplicity we're going to assume their snacks are 75% water and that adding a rehydrator makes the snacks they've packed last 4x as long. This creates a similar dynamic to using a more efficient engine: there's an up-front mass cost, but over a medium duration flight it pays for itself. I also like that it's a nod to real dehydrated astronaut meals and real life strategies for managing food preservation and payload mass.


Above: A) Radial Rehydrator (0.35 tons, Supports 1 Kerbal), B) 1.25m Inline Rehydrator (1 ton, Supports 3 Kerbals), C) 2.5m In-line Rehydrator (1.8 tons, Supports 6 Kerbals)

Step 3: Outer Planets and Greenhouses

By the time players are thinking about sending Kerbals to Jool or Eeloo they'll very likely have started small or even large colonies on Kerbin's moons and maybe Duna or other bodies. By this point they'll need a way not just to extend snacks but to generate new snacks. This same technology could be used for very long duration journeys, not just reusing the water but much of the biomass. Greenhouses use fertilizer, either mined at colonies or packed for the journey to provide 10x as many meals as tanked snacks. 


Above: A) 2.5-1.25m Greenhouse (2 tons, Supports 4 kerbals), B) 2.5m Inline Greenhouse (3.5 tons, Supports 8 Kerbals), C) 3.75m Inline Greenhouse (5 tons, Supports 12 Kerbals)

Step 4: Interstellar and Nutrient Reprocessors

Even greenhouses wont be enough to survive the vastness of space. Once you've entered the later stages of tech development you'll need heavy and power hungry nutrient reprocessors to reuse fertilizer and keep interstellar vessels fed for decades on end. In conjunction with greenhouses these are 99% efficient and produce 100x as many meals for the same mass in tanked Snacks. These ideas are currently being explored by systems like ESA's MELiSSA prototype. 


Above: A)  2.5m Nutrient Reprocessor (6 tons, supports 12 Kerbals), B) 3.75m Nutrient Reprocessor (10 tons, supports 24 Kerbals)

By staging these kinds of 'recyclers' into gameplay I think we can keep things interesting without overwhelming players, but also and most importantly make LS scaleable by giving players the tools to account for long periods of time without worry. Keep in mind that colonies and stations could equip greenhouses and reprocessors too, which with ISRU and supply lines would make them 100% self sufficient and capable of generating stockpiles of snacks and fertilizer for future missions. These systems also drastically shallow the mass-penalty curve. Below are the estimated total LS system masses players would need for 3-Kerbal round-trip interplanetary journies to each planet . I think in the 1.5-3 ton mass range these systems aren't a huge burden given the potential payoff. The last example shows the total LS mass for a 24 Kerbal journey to Debdeb estimated at 40 years. 15 tons may sound like a lot but I don't imagine it will rate on the scale of an interstellar vessel with an 80m engine.



What We Gain:

I think the real question at the end of the day is how could this actually change the way players play KSP in a qualitatively better way?  What are we adding? The most important thing is time. There are many existing systems like ISRU and longer term experiments that take time, but as many have pointed out what does it matter if you can just time-warp? And conversely if you've added a cost to time-warping aren't you necessarily hindering players from doing so when they want or need to? What this system creates is a cost thats both soft and flexible. Players are both given the tools to make time for themselves but also aren't being overly punished for mistakes. It knits together all of these other time factors and adds considerations for things like launch windows and slingshots. It even creates the incentive for players to start thinking about brachistochrone trajectories and advanced engines that can get players where they'd like to go much faster than your average Hohmann transfer. I think this really opens up the way players will think about traversing space especially in the later game. 

The other advantage is more subtle: actually providing for Kerbals' basic well-being becomes an integral part of designing missions and engineering vessels. You can still stick Val in a lander can and send her to Eeloo if you want, but you'll have to accept that she won't be at her best when she gets there. I think LS both keeps the focus on science and engineering but also creates an emotional connection to your crews and gives real drama to the experience of living and exploring space. 

Thank you for coming to my tedtalk.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Sea_Kerman]

I like it, and it gives a good reason to make big cool-looking interplanetary vessels instead of just a little capsule on a big fuel tank.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Sea_Kerman

[Stoup]

I like it! If LS were to be implemented, I'd hope it'd be something like this system. I can attest that with USI at least trying to figure out ratios of snacks, fertilizer, recyclers etc got to feeling overwhelming pretty quickly, so keeping those systems as simple as possible is a good way to go for the base game in my opinion

[Rothryn]

Definitely a great idea, especially the incentive based approach instead of a punishment based approach. Would certainly incentivise much more interesting vessel designs. A well thought through suggestion!

[cocoscacao]

I was just about to write one giant dismissive nah, but the concept is cool. Concept art too

[Barrackar]

I agree with most of your analysis with one important addendum about life support in KSP1 and disclaimer about KSP2.

For KSP2 we're going to have colonies and the ability to launch vessels from those colonies and orbital construction as a core mechanic of the base game. This is going to fundamentally change the game and, in-my-opinion, define what KSP2 is as a game. I think it is too soon to say how LS can be incorporated until we know more about what colonies will be as a core feature. It may make more sense to have LS buildings as a structured part of the colony buildings and not as parts of any vehicles. Developers mentioned colonies would be constructed in an interaction which somewhat resembles VAB construction - except it is outside and you are placing buildings instead of parts. 

For KSP1 there was also a fundamental problem with ISRU (and therefore also LS) which mods couldn't solve. This dealt with the way resources were simulated in KSP1. Notably, no resources were gained or lost unless you were flying or within 2.3km or the vehicle. Whenever you switched back to a colony or ship it would attempt to approximate what happened over the interim based off the current rates. However, this causes two related problems: (1) if anything happens very slowly or in very small quantities rounding errors can often result in zero production of the corresponding resource. (2) When loading a vehicle it will attempt to use massive quantities of electricity based on instant generating potential. Accordingly, if your solar panels aren't correctly oriented you may find your entire batteries drained (or occasionally find other resources entirely drained). This is a problem which couldn't be solved in mods because the simulation loop didn't evaluate this. A core re-design in KSP2 was in re-doing how resources are handled to accommodate certain features which are all based off of fixing this fundamental mechanic.

Very cool concept art and I concur with your well thought out points above. Just adding my own two cents in addition.

[whatsEJstandfor]

I would like to once again propose* that life support be made up of SNACKs:
• Shelter (Each Kerbal must have their own living space)
• Nutrition (Each Kerbal consumes an amount of food and water each day and produces a proportional amount of waste that must be disposed of, brought back, or recycled)
• Air (Each Kerbal consumes an amount of breathable gas per minute and produces waste gas that must be disposed of or recycled)
• Companionship of Kerbals (Think of the Social bar indicator in The Sims; each Kerbal has their own tolerance for lack of social interaction (introverted ones need less socializing and extroverted ones need more) but, if a Kerbal is going to be spending months or years in isolation, it will negatively impact their performance or happiness or whatever metric we're using)

Maybe the gameplay loop for this, instead of just plonking a bunch of specialized parts onto your craft to fulfill each requirement, is that you get to edit and customize the interior of crew modules and cabins. Like, in the VAB, you could select a crew cabin and enter the Cabin Assembly Editor. You're given the empty interior of a crew cabin and get to place furniture and devices (CO2 scrubbers, food grow areas, sleeping sacks, toilets, etc) and whatnot in it.

* I really don't know if this would actually be fun and interesting, or if it'd be tedious. I'm deffo not a game designer. I just think the acronym is cute.

[Periple]

Wow you put a lot of work into this! Concept art even! 

I think your design is mostly sound but I do have some thoughts.

First, I really don’t think making LS just an efficiency boost or prevention of efficiency drop will cut it. I don’t thing it will feel like LS any more, and even if you get past that, I don’t think it will feel impactful enough to be worth it.

A lot hangs on how you define kerbal efficiency in the first place which you haven’t really addressed. Do scientists or engineers produce at a slower rate? Or does it decrease the absolute amount of the resource they’re helping produce? Are resources exhaustible in the first place?

Or do they lose abilities they have? Like engineers won’t be able to repair or install some things, pilots will lose some SAS modes, something else?

These aren’t easy questions and your answers will determine whether it’s simpler just to ignore LS and warp past the problems or not, and how annoying it gets if you do ignore it.

But mostly I think that it won’t feel like LS if failing with it doesn’t usually risk compromising the mission (at best). A hit to crew efficiency mostly won’t.

So I would make the failure condition of LS that kerbals go into hibernation. They could dry up into little spores that you need to rehydrate to get back. You could also get them to voluntarily hibernate to manage your need for LS.

Second, for a system like this to work over big time scales, it has to be possible to find an equilibrium state where things will keep working in the background without intervention.

I think there might be a solution if you combine this with the colony, resource, and automated resupply system. You would need some really sophisticated mission planning tools though!

I’d make it a goal that LS is ignorable for short missions, that resupply runs come into play immediately with colonies, and a part of setting up your infrastructure is producing and moving snacks to keep your crews hydrated. So you build a space station and then run the supply lines it needs to keep going.

If you fail, your crew will go into hibernation as spores and you’ll need to send a rescue mission with snacks and a med team to rehydrate them.

For interstellar missions it would have to be closed-cycle, with hydroponics modules and such, effectively a mass tax, but with most of your colonists in hibernation for the crossing.

It would also need to be integrated to a really good mission planner so you can reliably project what you need to bring and how much capacity your supply system needs to have.

Under this model, LS would have the following phases:

Early game in Kerbin system: ignorable. Your crew pods have enough snacks for a leisurely trip to Minmus and back. If you forget a crew and it hibernates, you need to send a rescue mission.

Interplanetary game: mission planner and snack containers. Your mission planner will help with the dV, TWR and other things but also tell you the  mission duration based on your transfer windows and yell at you if you don’t have enough snacks so you can plan for it. And again if you fail, rescue missions.

Colony game: introduces automated resupply. Your planner tools will tell you how much resupply your bases need and help you plan the resupply missions for them. Once set up you can leave them running in the background and the system will be in equilibrium.

Interstellar game: closed-cycle snack generators and colony modules that quickly become self-sufficient, with hibernated colonists. LS becomes mostly ignorable again — just a mass tax. You will only need to establish colonies and supply lines if you have outposts that aren’t self-sufficient.

This is a LOT of stuff — parts, mechanics, planners, supply route automation, and so on, and I really don’t think it’ll be fun if it doesn’t have the whole package! It’s a lot of work to implement and balance and if you get it wrong it will create masses of busywork and grind.

I would love to play this though!

[Gotmachine]

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

What are we adding? The most important thing is time.

As a Kerbalism dev, I'm a huge supporter of time as a core gameplay element, and LS is a major part of it. There are other gameplay loops (ISRU, crew health...) that can benefit from LS, but it's one of the two pillars of the "time isn't free" mechanism, the other one being maintenance/failures. Outside of that, LS is not a very good gameplay loop in itself. It has the inherent flaw that it's mostly a planning stage gameplay loop with punishing consequences appearing way latter and no way out for the player.

This being said, I don't think any of this is relevant given the core gameplay pillars that were choosen for KSP 2. KSP 2 made the choice to zoom out and to go for a more macro simulation. The technology scope ranges from near future to science fiction. The time scales to hundred of years. The amount of concurrently active places and kerbals to hundreds.

There are already a lot of design and technical difficulties when trying to put together the "time isn't free" mechanism. Even at the KSP 1 scale and scope with few concurrent active missions/places, and interplanetary (not interstellar) time scales, that mechanism inherently involve some micromanagement.

Your proposition is a nice one if your goal is to get a LS thing in the game, and it's well designed given the scope and other gameplay loops of KSP 2, but I can't help to notice that it has no purpose beside a boost in science gains, which is a peripheral mechanism. You also cannot solve the issue of interstellar timescales without a magic food generator, which once available essentially defeat the whole thing. Yes there are some balance tricks that could be used, but as I see your proposition, it's an optional mechanism that doesn't add anything to how the game plays, it's just here to exist.

KSP 2 made the choice to expand the scope to science-fiction territory. It certainly opened some new shiny opportunities, but by doing so it also threw away a lot of potential rooted in real-world space exploration challenges. Personnaly I think this was a mistake. What was setting KSP apart from the crowd of other space themed games is being rooted in what we can relate to in the real world.

[Alpha_star]

Could you maybe share the models of the parts? They look FANTASTIC!

[cocoscacao]

45 minutes ago, Gotmachine said:

I can't help to notice that it has no purpose beside a boost in science gains

I'm more in the hibernation category. They don't die, you just lose control of the vessel, unless you have probe. Having a probe and radio signal means you can land, but nothing more, since everyone's asleep...

There could also be some hibernation pods toggled on/off remotely, so Kerbals don't waste food during trips.

One question I think we all missed for AMAs... How will radio comms work on interstellar level?

[Lowi_Sace]

Great idea for implementing life support. It should be implemented in a not to punishing way that motivates players to build cooler and bigger crafts. For the first hops to orbit, mun and minmus LS should indeed not really be a thing players need to worry about much. Build in LS of crew capsule is sufficient and you are fine if you have enough electricity (LS would consume a bit of power). Later in the game (interplanetary or longer stays in space) it becomes more important. Letting life support have a effect on kerbal performance seems like a great way to do it. Bad LS could then result in kerbals making random errors (making controlling vessel and kerbal during EVA harder) and have a negative impact on science gain (less science for surface sample and less return of laboratory module). One variable that also (in my opinion) should be important is space/kerbal. This would reward players that go the extra mile by making a spacecraft with more interior volume.

 

Another thing for kerbal well being could be a use case for artificial gravity. Kerbals that spend to long in 0G (or low G bodies) will get less fit which will have effect on walking speed and jumping height. This could be countered by adding a gravity ring to your craft. Also enough space would benefit fitness levels, because kerbals have room to exercise. For bodies with lower G then kerbin fitness level will go down slower and plateau (stop going down) way earlier.

[stephensmat]

I have utmost respect for anyone who puts the effort in, even when not being paid. Kudos, for that reason above all else. I also agree with using a carrot instead of a stick. A thought out, reasoned plan like this is sure to get the attention of modders, if not the Devs.

My concern is the Science Points; and that's not limited to your scenario. In KSP1, I've usually unlocked the whole tech tree by the time I've landed on Minmus two or three times. In KSP1, it's not an issue, because excess points are profitable. I'm a little concerned about what will happen after that with KSP2. I hope there's some mechanic for making use of extra points.

[Vl3d]

1. Science reward scaling is done by adding new experiments (and comms but that's a separate discussion). This also includes adding kerbals that can install / perform / maintain these experiments. All Kerbal-independent experiments should not depends on life support. The path should be: (a certain) experiment (depends on) kerbals (depend on) life support.

2. Because of the fact that devs have not communicated plans to implement a mechanic which allows sequentially performing parallel missions (by going back in time after finishing a mission), in stock KSP life support cannot depend on time variables. You have to be able to leave kerbals in orbit or in Interstellar transit for 100+ years.

3. Point 2 means that LS can only be implemented as non-consumables (recyclers / radiation protection) added as parts with a mass / EC / thermal cost which add a bonus to the kerbals on mission (improved performance, extra capabilities - this can include experiments for extra science rewards). But that's not what is important about LS (see point 6).

4. I consider radiation management protection to be part of the life support concept. But it's not enough.

5. The main point of having life support is enabling new player stories by not ignoring a crucial part of space flight. LS integration and management is the biggest hurdle to manned missions. It's just a part of the game, it's at the base of the "realism" pillar. This means it can be somewhat abstracted away, but it cannot be missing.

6. The main gameplay impact of adding life support is incentivising using probes instead of kerbals. This can be done by adding a craft designs / mission "complexity tax" to manned exploration - this is the main argument of adding life support.

Sending probes is just simpler and faster - it does not require a return mission, but this is not enough because some players just consider kerbals disposable. Also just getting more science from a manned mission devalues unmanned missions even more, because if sending a kerballed craft is as easy as sending a probe, but even more rewarding, then what's the point of having probes in the game?

So LS is a way to balance the game and to create a clear distinction: probes are disposable, kerbals are not - because adding life support requires you to think more when designing the craft.

This was the whole point of adding the deployable experiments in KSP1. But that is just a "runtime complexity tax", not one applied at design time. We also need LS.

TLDR: Devs will probably add a radiation management system that plays the role of life support. But I would also like some dedicated LS parts which give bonuses and/or capabilities to kerbals.. like a med pod and a kerbal medic class.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Vl3d

[jastrone]

i think a good idea would be making lifesupport only necessary for "colony kerbals". that way you dont really have to think about it earlygame  because you will only be sending out pilots,scientists and engeneers anyways. it would also ad a good use for the ring modules because they would be for colony kerbals while regular pods would be for proffesional kerbals.

and you could have more advanced or simple life support systems depending on difficoulty. lowest would be only having electricity (for the gravity rings) and maybe also something simple like food,oxygen or water while higher difficoulties would require a lot more things and maybe even radiation protection.

[Periple]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Sending probes is just simpler and faster - it does not require a return mission, but this is not enough because some players just consider kerbals disposable.

That would be easy to address — make kerbals scarcer!

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

This means it can be somewhat abstracted away, but it cannot be missing.

It can be, and in fact according to what they've said so far, it will be!

[Pthigrivi]

14 hours ago, Barrackar said:

 I think it is too soon to say how LS can be incorporated until we know more about what colonies will be as a core feature. It may make more sense to have LS buildings as a structured part of the colony buildings and not as parts of any vehicles. 

Yeah a few others have also mentioned pieces like Science and ISRU and we really don't know enough about how those are being implemented to really know how LS would connect. This is just a best shot at a foundation. I'll probably make an addendum when science comes out so it makes more sense with what they're cooking up. 
 

7 hours ago, Alpha_star said:

Could you maybe share the models of the parts? They look FANTASTIC!

Aw thanks! I wish I could, they're just mockups in sketchup and wouldn't work as models. Nothing like sketchup to bang out 8 parts watching football. 
 

13 hours ago, whatsEJstandfor said:

I would like to once again propose* that life support be made up of SNACKs:
• Shelter (Each Kerbal must have their own living space)
• Nutrition (Each Kerbal consumes an amount of food and water each day and produces a proportional amount of waste that must be disposed of, brought back, or recycled)
• Air (Each Kerbal consumes an amount of breathable gas per minute and produces waste gas that must be disposed of or recycled)
• Companionship of Kerbals (Think of the Social bar indicator in The Sims; each Kerbal has their own tolerance for lack of social interaction (introverted ones need less socializing and extroverted ones need more) but, if a Kerbal is going to be spending months or years in isolation, it will negatively impact their performance or happiness or whatever metric we're using)

Ha love the acronym. Yeah others have brought up things like radiation, gravity, habitation. If I were just designing this for me I'd definitely include those things (especially habitation and companionship) but my goal here was to make a system that would appeal to the widest possible group of players so I tried to keep it as simple as possible while still being interesting.

[PDCWolf]

I like parts of this idea, but I feel it's really trying to slalom around the elephants in the room: the first one being punishing the player.

Even if you propose the whole system as a way to gain efficiency (or bring lower efficiency to normal levels), nothing stops the player from just going around the system by spamming, or timewarping. Kerbals slow when mining/performing experiments? send more Kerbals with more drills/experiments and so on. It'll end up just being a mass tax in one way or the other, either by requiring the player to include those modules to extend the efficient time of a Kerbal, or bigger capsules to send more inefficient Kerbals.

Further on, when a system is this simple and linear, it really doesn't bring in to the table any sort of engineering challenge. It ends up being "add more part to live longer". A system like life support needs to have a certain depth and complexity to it to hit just right and not become a straight up mass tax. You need to give players a myriad of tools to experiment and design mission profiles to their liking. Maybe they want to just spam LS cargo without any recycling for a simple mission to a colony? Maybe they want a self-sustaining, no-waste, closed loop of LS for a 100 years long interstellar mission? Maybe they want a quick Kerbin to Mun shuttle that packs barely enough food and water for the trip and just drops waste into space?

This system also stands on the way of the "sequential" gameplay, wherein players only fly a single mission for its complete duration instead of doing many at the same time. This is for me the second elephant in the room, which happens to extend from time not being a limited resource and not wanting to punish the player, thus allowing them to do literally nothing but fly a single mission for a hundred years whilst their entire kerbal civilization and space program just stares doing nothing.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Pthigrivi]

10 hours ago, Periple said:

First, I really don’t think making LS just an efficiency boost or prevention of efficiency drop will cut it. I don’t thing it will feel like LS any more, and even if you get past that, I don’t think it will feel impactful enough to be worth it.

A lot hangs on how you define kerbal efficiency in the first place which you haven’t really addressed. Do scientists or engineers produce at a slower rate? Or does it decrease the absolute amount of the resource they’re helping produce? Are resources exhaustible in the first place?

Or do they lose abilities they have? Like engineers won’t be able to repair or install some things, pilots will lose some SAS modes, something else?

These aren’t easy questions and your answers will determine whether it’s simpler just to ignore LS and warp past the problems or not, and how annoying it gets if you do ignore it.

But mostly I think that it won’t feel like LS if failing with it doesn’t usually risk compromising the mission (at best). A hit to crew efficiency mostly won’t.

So I would make the failure condition of LS that kerbals go into hibernation. They could dry up into little spores that you need to rehydrate to get back. You could also get them to voluntarily hibernate to manage your need for LS.

Yeah this is a tough one. My theory is that Science is a really good pressure point for this because getting new parts is going to be the biggest motivator for most players, and maximizing your science from each mission is going to be really important to most people. I feel like it's one thing to lose a probe because you lost communication (even that is pretty punishing tbh) but losing a crew is too much, and even with Hybernation that could still happen if they aren't in a stable orbit and get flung out into space. Of course this would probably never happen because you'd know ahead of time--right after your exit burn you'll see your LS timer and and your time-till-PE on the target body and can make a change or revert. There are also some fun things that could happen with rescue missions too. I think those kinds of stakes are great for hard mode, but Im trying to focus on the most widely appealing version for normal default settings. 
 

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

2. Because of the fact that devs have not communicated plans to implement a mechanic which allows sequentially performing parallel missions (by going back in time after finishing a mission), in stock KSP life support cannot depend on time variables. You have to be able to leave kerbals in orbit or in Interstellar transit for 100+ years.

Im going to respond a little more substantively to yours and a couple other posts but on this one point--I think an argument could be made that something like the Nutrient Reprocessors would be 100% efficient and would last forever. To keep things more consistent and operative throughout gameplay I've opted for very-nearly closed loop, where you could support 100 kerbals for a 100 year journey on 2t of fertilizer with the right equipment. Colonies and stations would actually have indefinite LS through ISRU and supply lines as soon as you unlock greenhouses so even players running one mission at a time to other star systems wouldn't feel like they were constantly going back and fiddling with colonies back home if they didn't want to. 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Lowi_Sace]

16 hours ago, Periple said:

That would be easy to address — make kerbals scarcer!

Will probably happen with colonies. All kerbals are on kerbin, but on a far away colony only the kerballs you brought will be there (or maybe more due to reproduction of kerbals, which will probably be a slow progress). The further away the colony, the more scarcer kerballs will become

On 9/12/2023 at 3:46 AM, whatsEJstandfor said:

Maybe the gameplay loop for this, instead of just plonking a bunch of specialized parts onto your craft to fulfill each requirement, is that you get to edit and customize the interior of crew modules and cabins. Like, in the VAB, you could select a crew cabin and enter the Cabin Assembly Editor. You're given the empty interior of a crew cabin and get to place furniture and devices (CO2 scrubbers, food grow areas, sleeping sacks, toilets, etc) and whatnot in it.

Is also a great idea which would make it realistic. Another way is that you can have an inventory like in KSP1 for certain parts. This idea could also be made simpler by having one of the main factor be pressurized space per kerbal. Then just don’t have interiors in most parts and you just imagine how the interior would be devided. How longer the mission how more space every kerbal needs which also has impact on required delta V, Amount of power consumption and amount of radiators. Parts like green houses could bring the amount of volume/kerbal down by a certain percentage (less space needed for snacks). This would make them not necessary/handy for short missions, but increasingly more for how longer the mission is

 

One thing that does need to happen before life support is a more advanced mission planner which takes stuff like launch windows and aviable deltaV for every burn into account. In this way you could better plan a mission and estimate mission lenght

 

[VlonaldKerman]

I really like a lot of aspects of your suggestion, especially the concept art. However I’m worried you’re solving a problem that may not be there.

I understand the problem is, “We like LS because it makes time important, but it seems too punishing to a) “one mission at-a-time” people, and b) casual or new players.

I feel like the solution to this is UNCREWED exploration.

I agree that having Kerbals onboard should increase your science yields. But this should come with some disadvantages. Namely, the added risk of losing a Kerbal (will there be penalties for this???) and the extra mass needed to keep them alive.

Also, I feel like the ship has sailed (no pun intended) on catering to “one mission at a time” players. When colonies are introduced, the player will probably have to have multiple colonies running concurrently with missions being conducted on or around each. Eventually, the player will have to begin managing several missions at one time. This seems like a natural part of progression. It follows, then, that as the player becomes more advanced, they begin to use crew and therefore run multiple missions at once, which acts as a natural buildup towards colony gameplay.

As I understand it, the goal with KSP 2 is the same goal that many sequels have: decrease or maintain the skill floor, while raising the skill ceiling. KSP 2’s new player onboarding and similar gameplay will fulfill the first requirement- and it seems like the addition of basic (one-resource) LS would be a natural solution to the third.

I think there’s a more general point here, about the fail to learn, DIY spirit of KSP. The nature of a rocket sim is that it is difficult, and not for all kinds of players. It is impossible to FORCE or FACILITATE someone’s developing proficiency at KSP. This is a fundamental element that won’t change unless they drastically nerf gameplay.

In my experience, LS is not, as a feature/consideration, wildly difficult relative to all of the other challenging aspects of the game. And the fact that players may struggle, or even fail with it, maybe several times before succeeding, sounds like more of a POSITIVE for a playerbase like KSP’s than a negative. Perhaps they want to change the playerbase drastically to accommodate less intrinsically motivated or interested people. I think this is a mistake, and fundamentally impossible.

I fell in love with KSP because I could immerse myself completely into a mission. I could transform my room into a ghetto KSC planning room with whiteboards full of mission profiles and weighing the pros and cons, etc. I feel like a LS system that’s all carrot, no stick is inconsistent with this vibe, and I may be wrong, but this vibe is that which I feel is fundamentally associated with KSP in a unique way.

[Strawberry]

I have surprisingly little thoughts on LS besides "yeah  I think itd be neat" but as others have pointed out that concept art is absolutely wonderful

[PicoSpace]

On 9/11/2023 at 2:59 PM, Pthigrivi said:

The last example shows the total LS mass for a 24 Kerbal journey to Debdeb estimated at 40 years. 

I heard someone mention 100 years.
 

On 9/12/2023 at 1:43 AM, Periple said:

Or do they lose abilities they have? Like engineers won’t be able to repair or install some things, pilots will lose some SAS modes, something else?

It would be interesting if hungry Kerbals did "less" that negatively effected the mission or basically paused it until you got those hungry tummys fed.
Pilots Refused to Fly
Science Can't be done.
Repairs Can't be Made.
Construction doesn't happen and all your kerbal operated equipment sort of just sits there.
Kerbals don't die, but if they get too hungry at the wrong time, well ships crash and other things are the fatalities.

On 9/12/2023 at 4:14 AM, Gotmachine said:

KSP 2 made the choice to expand the scope to science-fiction territory. It certainly opened some new shiny opportunities, but by doing so it also threw away a lot of potential rooted in real-world space exploration challenges. Personnaly I think this was a mistake. What was setting KSP apart from the crowd of other space themed games is being rooted in what we can relate to in the real world.

I tend to agree, while I think for Colonies and Interstellar they do need to take a step or two into the future there doesn't seem to much interest in current spaceflight considerations (so long 1.875m, you will be missed).

[HephaistosFnord]

On 9/11/2023 at 3:46 PM, whatsEJstandfor said:

I would like to once again propose* that life support be made up of SNACKs:
• Shelter (Each Kerbal must have their own living space)
• Nutrition (Each Kerbal consumes an amount of food and water each day and produces a proportional amount of waste that must be disposed of, brought back, or recycled)
• Air (Each Kerbal consumes an amount of breathable gas per minute and produces waste gas that must be disposed of or recycled)
• Companionship of Kerbals (Think of the Social bar indicator in The Sims; each Kerbal has their own tolerance for lack of social interaction (introverted ones need less socializing and extroverted ones need more) but, if a Kerbal is going to be spending months or years in isolation, it will negatively impact their performance or happiness or whatever metric we're using)

Maybe the gameplay loop for this, instead of just plonking a bunch of specialized parts onto your craft to fulfill each requirement, is that you get to edit and customize the interior of crew modules and cabins. Like, in the VAB, you could select a crew cabin and enter the Cabin Assembly Editor. You're given the empty interior of a crew cabin and get to place furniture and devices (CO2 scrubbers, food grow areas, sleeping sacks, toilets, etc) and whatnot in it.

* I really don't know if this would actually be fun and interesting, or if it'd be tedious. I'm deffo not a game designer. I just think the acronym is cute.

This is exactly how you do it.

Ideally, Kerbals should have a few SIM-like traits, which you can discover at the Training Facility. Then you can design missions based on the Sociability, Health, Intelligence, and Reflexes of your available crews.

- Sociability - determines whether the Kerbal is a net drag or boost on others, as well as their own social needs (slight boost with experience)
- Health - determines G-force robustness, endurance, impact tolerance, etc., as well as how quickly they suffer from adverse life support conditions (slight boost with experience)
- Intelligence - how capable they are at doing science and engineering type tasks (multiplies with experience)
- Reflexes - how capable they are at flying the ship (multiplies with experience) 

A Kerbal who doesn't have their life support or social needs met will have their performance degraded in all four stats; if Reflexes or Intelligence drops to zero they stop being a functional crewmember, if Sociability drops to zero they start sabotaging the mission, and if Health drops to zero they die.

 

 

[Periple]

10 hours ago, HephaistosFnord said:

Ideally, Kerbals should have a few SIM-like traits, which you can discover at the Training Facility. Then you can design missions based on the Sociability, Health, Intelligence, and Reflexes of your available crews.

I think this is a terrible idea! It's much, MUCH too micromanage-y to be enjoyable in a game like KSP. It'll just mean that missions go bad seemingly at random because almost nobody will be paying attention to kerbal traits because they're so focused on building vessels and planning missions!

Kerbal traits as cosmetic/flavor elements can be fun and are totally fine (although I think they should be a pretty low priority), but they should absolutely not have gameplay implications. Even kerbal professions and experience are in the risk zone of becoming more annoying than fun and have to be handled carefully!

As to LS itself, having it manage multiple needs also risks getting way too fiddly way too quickly. I very much prefer the OP's simple approach of having one LS resource (snacks) and a binary outcome (sufficient LS — everything is fine, insufficient LS — Bad Things start happening).

As I wrote in my reply above though, I think hibernation is the best compromise outcome for insufficient LS: it's not as catastrophic as death, it opens up room for rescue/recovery missions which can involve exciting self-directed gameplay, it feels like actual LS rather than just optimization, and it makes LS an integral part of craft and mission design, just like heat, comms, aerodynamics, and the rest of it.