Life support?

[Scarecrow71]

19 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

There's 3 different camps for LS.

There's a 4th:  Those of us who don't care either way, so long as if it's added it's an optional system and not a mandatory one.

[Pthigrivi]

8 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The main point of contention is if we want to be able to time warp at will or not. I, for one, think that if you prevent players from time warping arbitrarily when landed or in orbit, you break stock gameplay (as it is today, lacking a mechanism to parallelize sequential missions).

Lethal radiation and heating fulfills all your player stories for life support.

Take this for example. If LS is just a science and ISRU bonus for adequately providing food then you can happily ignore it and timewarp all you like. Nothing bad will happen to your kerbals or your game. Its just a science bonus you weren't interested in. You can compensate by taking that time to go explore faster. Totally your choice. 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

7 hours ago, Periple said:

Then it sounds like stock KSP (1 or 2) just isn’t for you! Realism never was an objective, it was always about sufficient verisimilitude and fun gameplay. Complaining about that is like being upset that McDonald’s doesn’t have a wine list and a sommelier!

Making a large and complex gameplay system that directly impacts core gameplay (vessel and mission design) optional is a terrible idea. 

Edit: However, I think it would be a great  idea to make the consequence of running out of LS (hibernation or death) a difficulty option. How would you feel about that?

Funnily enough, I have over five thousand hours in KSP and a couple hundred in KSP2 - despite the gaps and issues I love this game with a depraved unholy passion :).  I compensate for the lack of life support by building lots of living room into ships -  with the exception of orbital skydiving shots anything going to be out for more than a few days gets a higher seat to Kerbal ratio.  For Duna I’ll aim for 3 seats per Kerbal, for father than that I’ll go 4-5.  The idea is to add more space, weight, and complexity to approximate really good long term life support.  I’d love it if the game gave me more to play with in that respect…

To your edit, yes, that’d be fine by me.  I’d like more realistic permadeath LS, but recognize that others might not, and toggleable options as you describe baked right in would make everyone happy.

[Vl3d]

38 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Take this for example. If LS is just a science and ISRU bonus for adequately providing food then you can happily ignore it and timewarp all you like. Nothing bad will happen to your kerbals or your game. Its just a science bonus you weren't interested in. You can compensate by taking that time to go explore faster. Totally your choice. 

The best science and resource bonus mechanism is flying another mission.

[Pthigrivi]

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

The best science and resource bonus mechanism is flying another mission.

Totally. Its probably less efficient in terms of resources/science payout but if you're timewarping like crazy anyway maybe that doesn't matter. Thats the nice thing--its there for folks who enjoy that kind of planning and optimization and it integrates with other systems that are time based. If you're ignoring both and bowling headfirst there's no harm. 

[Periple]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

If life support is more about bonuses and carrots its no different from science experiments or resources being harvested over time--its just a time-based reward with engineering implications. 

The difficulty is that there aren’t all that many mechanics you could connect reward-based LS. Kerbals provide capabilities that wouldn’t otherwise be available, not numeric bonuses, and meaningful bonuses aren’t easy to set up. You would need to rethink the way kerbals work and introduce a lot more RPG-like systems, which would take the game in a new direction that I’m not sure fits it.

The meaningful variables just don’t scale naturally — I wouldn’t want pilots to affect ISP for example!

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Totally. Its probably less efficient in terms of resources/science payout but if you're timewarping like crazy anyway maybe that doesn't matter. Thats the nice thing--its there for folks who enjoy that kind of planning and optimization and it integrates with other systems that are time based. If you're ignoring both and bowling headfirst there's no harm. 

It's a big development time investment for an optional feature which actually penalizes players that don't play in a certain way. Mods can serve the more advanced users that want to enjoy a parallel missions playstyle.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Vl3d

[Periple]

2 hours ago, Scarecrow71 said:

There's a 4th:  Those of us who don't care either way, so long as if it's added it's an optional system and not a mandatory one.

That’s equivalent to the “no LS” camp. You don’t want it in your game.

[Scarecrow71]

40 minutes ago, Periple said:

That’s equivalent to the “no LS” camp. You don’t want it in your game.

That's not entirely accurate.  I may not want it, but if it's an option I'll certainly give it a shot from time to time.  I just don't want it to be forced on us.

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Periple said:

The difficulty is that there aren’t all that many mechanics you could connect reward-based LS. Kerbals provide capabilities that wouldn’t otherwise be available, not numeric bonuses, and meaningful bonuses aren’t easy to set up. You would need to rethink the way kerbals work and introduce a lot more RPG-like systems, which would take the game in a new direction that I’m not sure fits it.

The meaningful variables just don’t scale naturally — I wouldn’t want pilots to affect ISP for example!

Those mechanics don't exist in the game yet, but science and ISRU are definitely going to be in the game and thats enough. Kerbals should certainly be important to science, for surface sample collection, crew reports, possibly in science labs. If those kinds of experiments produced 25% more if conducted by a well fed crew thats plenty of incentive because unlocking the tech-tree faster is what most players deep down are trying to do. When ISRU gets added those resources are your main line to expanding colonies and building and fueling ships making that extraction process more efficient becomes a big deal. It creates a strategic choice between uncrewed resource harvesters and crewed harvesters, where because of efficiency bonuses you can collect faster with lighter equipment or fewer harvesters with the same starting resources. Now, you could of course just time-warp with a tiny setup but then you risk blowing through transfer windows and loosing out on LS based science bonuses elsewhere in your program. That's the key thing a depletable LS resource brings--strategic choice--and strategic choice breeds greater design diversity and deeper gameplay. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Periple]

Ehh I really don’t like that idea. It’s not really life support if it didn’t support life in my opinion!

[Pthigrivi]

7 minutes ago, Periple said:

Ehh I really don’t like that idea. It’s not really life support if it didn’t support life in my opinion!

Haha well for you and probably me you could include more dire consequences on higher difficulties. I just wouldn't recommend that for the default/normal experience most players dive into because it would be unnecessarily punishing in an already tricky game. You have to keep in mind theres a pretty big overrepresentation of long-time players who have all the easy stuff down pat and are looking for additional challenges. I don't expect many of us would ever actually suffer those dire consequences because we already know how to avoid them. Thats not as certain for the general playerbase. 

[Vl3d]

21 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

unlocking the tech-tree faster is what most players deep down are trying to do

I disagree with this. I think unlocking the tech-tree should be as slow as possible without being repetitive - because being technologically limited incentivizes creativity, building a craft for a very specific task (such as a fly-by or a specific landing) is a great activity and also there's a certain amount of value that you can extract from the low-level parts that disappears if you rush to more advanced parts.

[Bej Kerman]

27 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

because being technologically limited incentivizes creativity

Restrictions have never incentivized creativity itself. Restrictions can incentivise creative ways around restrictions but "restrictions = creativity" is a tired old myth that exists only to justify nasty amounts of grind in games.

[dsplaisted]

Life support would be something I'd want if kerbals didn't die. 

(or a setting to choose if they die or go unconscious) 

Resources could be snacks, air, and water.

Radiation and overheating could also be implemented.

Edited November 15, 2023 by dsplaisted

[Pthigrivi]

On 11/15/2023 at 3:19 PM, Vl3d said:

I disagree with this. I think unlocking the tech-tree should be as slow as possible without being repetitive - because being technologically limited incentivizes creativity, building a craft for a very specific task (such as a fly-by or a specific landing) is a great activity and also there's a certain amount of value that you can extract from the low-level parts that disappears if you rush to more advanced parts.

I think there's a difference between how the game itself structures rewards and manages pacing and what the internal motivation of most players will be. The reality is for most players one of the key drives is going to be unlocking bigger and better parts. From a game design standpoint though you're going to be a bit stingy. You're trying to let out new parts at a moderate but steady pace so players have access to the tools they need to take the next step without grinding but are also motivated to get the next thing, which in turn unlocks new capabilities, and so on. Integrating a rewards-based LS would be similar to increasing the potential rewards if players can maintain comnet connection over a period of time for instance. You've taken on an  extra, optional challenge and there's a small additional reward for that. Here's how Chris Adderley put the problem:
 

On 9/8/2023 at 1:59 PM, Nertea said:

These are the best questions because they’re the hard ones. Often we trend towards supporting a player path that doesn’t reward excessive timewarping, but doesn’t exclude it either. A good case study is resource extraction and deposit concentrations. There’s definitely fun in seeking out and finding the best deposit for mining. Obviously though timewarp makes that kinda moot in timing. You could just start mining a hypothetically low-grade deposit and warp for 50 days. That tells us that time and rate -based mechanics need to have more to work well. A specific example here is that a newly accessible resource should be constrained differently – challenging location, resource transport limitations, etc.

 We try to move the real player decisions to things that are interesting with and without time as a mechanic. Mostly hypothetical examples, but here’s a few ways of thinking of these things on top of my head:

• Put a locational constraint on something. If you need to do something in orbit over a specific part of a planet, make it take longer than the average orbital cycle. This might encourage a player to put a satellite in GEO orbit over that place. If you do the work to put it in GEO, you get the benefit of being able to timewarp.
• Use binaries instead of gradients. Does ore concentration really benefit from a really detailed gradient from 0.0001% to 100%, or can you look at it as a yes/no? Trade that, see if you’re damaging player stories with that simplification.
• Use supporting systems. Sure, you could mine that deposit at high timewarp. But the deposit is on a planet with a day length of 200 days, and you need power, and the area has no fissionables. How are you going to power it? If you solve this problem, it is satisfying and you get a cookie. You did the work, enjoy your timewarpable extraction!

These are really big problems we look at for all of the more complex systems because hey, an interstellar transfer could be 100 years. Players will timewarp that and that’s… the whole length of a KSP1 campaign. Fun with and without timewarping like this is essential.

The key quote being: "We try to move the real player decisions to things that are interesting with and without time as a mechanic."  There's a subtle but important difference between a mechanic working BOTH with and without time as a factor, and a mechanic that is only interesting without time as a factor. I think 'both' is exactly what a rewards-based LS does because players can choose to incorporate time-based planning into their missions and take a mass penalty in exchange for a small bump in science and resource returns, or, as a strategic or personal choice, focus instead on probes, or fast, down and dirty missions. Those decisions on a mission to mission and vessel to vessel basis are still interesting both with time as a consideration (planning for LS) and without (allowing total flight flexibility).

Edited November 17, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

2 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

working BOTH with and without time as a factor ... I think 'both' is exactly what a rewards-based LS does because players can choose to incorporate time-based planning into their missions and take a mass penalty in exchange for a small bump in science and resource returns, or, as a strategic or personal choice, focus instead on probes, or fast, down and dirty missions. Those decisions on a mission to mission and vessel to vessel basis are still interesting both with time as a consideration (planning for LS) and without (allowing total flight flexibility).

I'm really parsing what you're saying. I get your point. What I'm answering is that a system that wants to insert mechanics that penalizes a player for time warping (or as you say, gives a bonus for players that do not time warp arbitrarily) and also deadly consumable time-sensitive LS can't work in practice if you cannot execute missions both from start to end (without being distracted) and in parallel (multiple missions taking place at the same time). Without this fundamental mechanic, there will always be a conflict for play styles and game balance - advanced players will not be able to play quickly while min-maxing, and beginner players won't be able to feel that the game rewards them without playing slowly. Besides, there is already a bonus mechanic for planning in the game - you do another mission and get rewarded more.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I'm really parsing what you're saying. I get your point. What I'm answering is that a system that wants to insert mechanics that penalizes a player for time warping (or as you say, gives a bonus for players that do not time warp arbitrarily) and also deadly consumable time-sensitive LS can't work in practice if you cannot execute missions both from start to end (without being distracted) and in parallel (multiple missions taking place at the same time). Without this fundamental mechanic, there will always be a conflict for play styles and game balance - advanced players will not be able to play quickly while min-maxing, and beginner players won't be able to feel that the game rewards them without playing slowly. Besides, there is already a bonus mechanic for planning in the game - you do another mission and get rewarded more.

Im talking about game depth here, not game breadth—adding and strengthening layers to gameplay. And absolutely! play fast, don't think or worry too much, do whatever you want whenever you want is a really fun way to play KSP and many other games and I wouldn't tell anyone they shouldn't have fun however they wish to have fun. Thats a layer. But play-fast-don't-think isn't strictly compatible with min/maxing in any game I've ever played. Usually you have to pay attention to the basic structure of whats going on and the more and deeper you understand its dynamics and synergies the better you do. Thats kind of the whole point of games. Time IS a layer of this game. Though it need not be mandatory there should be rewards for considering it. 

Think about Skyrim and spells. As a player you don't need to use spells. There are lots of cool builds that rely little or not at all on them. But it's an option, and that option creates a dynamic field of choice which increases the kind of gameplay possible within the world. Time could be similar in KSP. You don't have to use it. But the game would be much, much less without the option. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Pthigrivi

[Emanuel01]

Not different to what’s been already said here, mostly agree with @Periple’s points. Here are my takes:

1. LS solves the issue with time warp. Since we’ll have colonies, resources and interstellar gameplay, players could exploit time warp as a shortcut. LS limits that and creates interesting game loops.

2. LS can act as an interesting and clever way to balance those powerful late game engines. More mass required, less delta V.

3. I’d pick oxygen, CO2, water, food, radiation, waste, fertilizer and habitation as the main variables. 

4.  Waste can be recycled and turned into water + fertilizer or dumped to remove mass.

5. Oxygen, water and CO2 can be easily managed in medium distance trips (Duna and Eve). Should require more planning if going further.

5. Food is the main limiting resource, acting as a “more time, more mass” gameplay loop. Can be produced in big complex ships or small colonies using fertilizer + water + energy. 

6. Radiation fills a bar of “tolerance”, if exceeded, kerbals become sick (lowering yields and decreasing skill levels). Can result in hibernation in extreme levels.

7. Hibernation instead of death. Kerbals enter a coma state and can be awakened by medic kerbals in specialized colony parts. This maintains rescue missions and adds flavor and interesting player narratives.

8. Induced and programmed hibernation. Late game tech for those interstellar trips.

9. Habitation. Something to justify those awesome gravity rings.

Just a sketch of my thoughts. I understand that this could make the game extremely difficult for new players. Maybe giving the player proper tools for evaluating and planning trips reduces the difficulty. 

[LoSBoL]

I'm glad they didn't put in LS, at least in first place. I think the game would be difficult enough with Colonies, interstellar and recourses. 

[Dakitess]

On 11/15/2023 at 9:48 PM, Bej Kerman said:

Restrictions have never incentivized creativity itself. Restrictions can incentivise creative ways around restrictions but "restrictions = creativity" is a tired old myth that exists only to justify nasty amounts of grind in games.

I don't second that. Constraints and "restrictions" are definitely a way to explore, improve, to get away with a specific objective.

Say, for instance, the rover's design : without the "constraints" of a realistic detailed terrain, there is NO points, not even RolePlay, to build it so that it can withstand physical micro topology and rough terrain, because you won't ever be able to test it, to feel it, to get a visual and performance feedback so that you improve your design accordingly. Not the best example though as it's too much different, yeah. I do agree that restrictions and constraints should not be considered as a must, in game. But it's still relevant sometimes, to elevate the gameplay.

Regarding LS, I feel that having a metric, an assessment of what is or is not a sustainable crewed module, RolePlay will be the only way to care about it, and it won't be enough for some / most players. I do go the RolePlay route when it comes to LS : I don't use mod, I just adjust the whole living space and some drymass according to the mission duration and the crew required. But I would prefer to get some way to assess that it's OK-ish / not enough / plenty enough with a common base that would be told by the game. 

The effective impact of this is still to be determined : bonuses ? maluses ? hard punishment / impossibility to run the mission ? I'm not into a micro gestion, I don't even care about Kerbals Roles such as pilot, engineer, scientist. I just would like some very general and overviewed handle of Life Support to add some relief to crewed mission. There is clearly no separation today between crewed or probed mission, nothing that set them apart, except for mass which is way under-evaluated when it comes to crew.

Maybe some very general "gauges", maybe even 2 only would be enough : Crew resources and Crew sanity (excuse my english, might not be the good word) :

- Crew resources : just another "tank" that contains the whole 02, C02 recycling, food, water, etc etc etc. In one single box, one single box, that is consumed based on crew number and mission duration. You start with 500, and it decreased by 1 for each day, each member, that's it.

- Crew sanity : a second gauge that would represent the pysche of the whole crew, that might depends on plural interesting factors the real main one would be the living space. Totally fine to only get a capsule for 3 guys to reach orbit and dock, 2 days, etc. Not fine when it's for a 2 years duration to Duna. That would be a gauge that "consume" space or something like this, it's full at start and decrease by 1 for each day, each member. Not perfect though, less logic than the previous one but you can get it as a gauge that is actually green from 100 to 5% and at the end it shows that you might have planned for more space. It would be nice that this sanity can be reset my simply landing and EVA on a surface, or just at 50% max except if you can enter in a ground basis that has the whole living space to reset for another 2 years

Of course it would need some way to pre-calculate the required amount in the VAB/SPH ! And then the player would set it accordingly, give it a little margin to be safe OR not respect it and get... well, this is the part to be discussed : maluses ? nothing ? 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Dakitess

[pandaman]

I'm of the opinion that LS is too critical an aspect of space flight to just ignore.  I think it should be represented in some way.

Probably two 'resources' - Air and Food (which includes water), or perhaps have water as a specific third resource.

But with toggleable effects -   None, Death, and Hibernation as the default.

[Kimera Industries]

On 11/15/2023 at 1:06 AM, Superfluous J said:

or telephone sanitizer or whatever other jobs they have in KSP2

Was that a Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference I spotted there?

[PDCWolf]

On 11/15/2023 at 12:00 PM, Scarecrow71 said:

There's a 4th:  Those of us who don't care either way, so long as if it's added it's an optional system and not a mandatory one.

Optionality is extremely damaging to the game on these big systems, much more during EA. Check CDDA: all the drama aside, if you make features toggleable, people will muscle-memory into leaving or turning them off, thus new features don't get used or tested. The dev had to remove the toggles for the features to get used at all, causing an outcry, sure, but a small one that died out in like a month. This is not even going into having to balance the game both (or n^2, based on number of toggles) ways, because without LS your rockets would be lighter, smaller, and you wouldn't be on a timer (assuming a good LS system) for your missions, meaning the game isn't just the same with LS off, it's a whole different experience.

You're not on an alleged 4th camp because ultimately it's not about a toggle, it's about LS not being in your game no matter the cost.

If there's one thing KSP2 is definitely looking like it's not gonna be, is difficult, so y'all can rest completely assured on that, plus LS was confirmed not coming long ago anyways.

 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:41 AM, Vl3d said:

 

Yes, I played KSP 1 with LS once. I sent a 2 crew mission to land on Duna. It took me hours to design and execute it. Know what happened? The kerbals died of hunger 2 days before Kerbin reentry. But not simultaneously, no. Bill had to sit next to Jeb's corpse in the capsule for about 4 days before also expiring. We found 2 little green heroes on board, with clear signs of mental breakdown and possible cannibalism.

Does this sound like fun stock gameplay to you for a KSP beginner?

Yes.  Absolutely.  I would have been THRILLED if this and re-entry heating had been part of the game 11 years ago.  It would have been one less thing that I had to suspend my disbelief over.  Face it - every 10-year-old science nerd knows that you need life support in space, and even if we’re mostly older than that here chronologically, we all know that this is a glaring omission in the simulationy aspect of the game.  

Most n00bs will see Jeb asphyxiate or starve, nod, savour the drama, say “AGAIN” in an Austrian accent, and figure the system out.

Edit: and thinking about this further, the more horrible ways to die in space that I have to protect my Kerbals from, the happier I will be.
 

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman