Is Squad ever going to add stock life support?

[Moon Goddess]

It seems really odd to me they went to NASA and made this whole thing so we can play out NASA's plans for a real asteroid capture, yet we can't really do real missions because you can just dump a Kerbal out there, for a 100 years if you want. It's really getting dumb.

It's been a long long time since I've heard squad say anything about life support, I see all these worrying interviews about how they're finishing career and move to multiplayer then release, and I feel like there are some really major realism holes still left in the game before they move to any of these.

I love mods, but I shouldn't have to resort to mods for extremely basic things.

[regex]

I love mods, but I shouldn't have to resort to mods for extremely basic things.

Not to mention reentry heat and a better aerodynamic model...

IMO life support really only needs a basic, "meta" treatment in the base game, nothing nearly as complicated as what's currently out there, but it would be nice to have it.

[sal_vager]

Like Snacks for example?....

[Caelib]

If you can define a set of gameplay mechanics that make it interesting/challenging without being cumbersome or detract from the fun of the game, then please suggest it. Personally, I would like to see this aspect added but I cannot imagine how the system could be implemented in a "fun" way -- after hours of planning, your mission fails because your crew starves ... that doesn't sound fun.

[tntristan12]

I like Asmi's approach to it: having all life support get condensed down to Oxygen and CO2, the latter of which can be converted back into the former at the expense of electricity. However, without the ability to mine oxygen from the local landscape or air I feel would cheapen the experience, because to keep kerbals alive you'd need to constantly bring them more oxygen... So we're not quite ready yet, but I really hope it's coming.

[Moon Goddess]

If you can define a set of gameplay mechanics that make it interesting/challenging without being cumbersome or detract from the fun of the game, then please suggest it. Personally, I would like to see this aspect added but I cannot imagine how the system could be implemented in a "fun" way -- after hours of planning, your mission fails because your crew starves ... that doesn't sound fun.

but um... If nasa doesn't pack enough air or food, what do you think happens?

[Nemoricus]

I'd like to see a stock life support system at some point, but there's at least one issue that should be addressed.

What do you do with space stations? Having to resupply stations with life support time and again could get quite tedious after a while, and so there should be some mechanism to have those flights handwaved or automated.

[Franklin]

Squad could just take a shortcut and contact the developers of FAR/DRE/one of the lifesupport mods and ask to have them included into the default game. Would save on design time, everyone who's already accustomed to these mods wouldn't need to re-adjust, and we get [vast] game improvements overall. I mean Minecraft was known for this sort of mod community in-folding, why not Squad.

[Javster]

Either snacks or oxygen should be required for a Kerbal, at the most basic level.

I'd like to see a stock life support system at some point, but there's at least one issue that should be addressed.

What do you do with space stations? Having to resupply stations with life support time and again could get quite tedious after a while, and so there should be some mechanism to have those flights handwaved or automated.

Converters. To use up the poer from the big arrays.

[LethalDose]

I think the way TAC-LS does it now (adds Air, Water, Food, and electrcity is needed for LS, too) is great and I really think it should be incorporated into stock. This and other small changes could be made to vastly extend the complexity of resource management in space which would provide a deeper game.

And hey, thats fun.

ANd @sal_vager: Sure, change "food" to "snacks".

If you can define a set of gameplay mechanics that make it interesting/challenging without being cumbersome or detract from the fun of the game, then please suggest it. Personally, I would like to see this aspect added but I cannot imagine how the system could be implemented in a "fun" way -- after hours of planning, your mission fails because your crew starves ... that doesn't sound fun.

This is a facile argument because you can already fail missions due to poor planning. It's "not fun" because, after hours of planning, your ship runs out of fuel and your mission fails, so should fuel be removed from the game? It's "not fun" because, after hours of planning, your probe runs out of electricity and your mission fails, so should electricity be removed from the game? Adding life support to stock would represent that manned (keballed?) missions are more difficult than probe missions, which would quiet a lot of the complaining we see about "Probes being useless".

Supporting life support in the stock game, IMO, is important because its a popular option that modders shouldn't have to be expected to keep up on. And if SQUAD wants to support both camps, make life support a selectable option. Currently another resource (Science) is effectively selectable because you can choose to play in sandbox or career mode.

[Franklin]

The thing is, a lot of missions in KSP are one-way. Satellites, stations, bases, scanners and mining installations if you're using Kethane, gas stations... all of these either aren't coming back to Kerbin or will be out there for many, many years. So to include a survival-needs element requires the consideration that not all missions are return ones, and to add a mid-mission expiry to your Kerbals restricts creativity in these cases.

Which brings us to converters, which produce survival-need items mid-mission, and if they produce them infinitely, which would be necessary for one-way missions without adding compound maintenance, then really this whole mechanic just boils down to one more part you need to slap onto your rocket. Like a solar panel and a battery. You'd slap on a converter unit and off you go. No one would call the solar panel & battery mechanic 'interesting', it's just a mission consideration.

Survival-needs seem like a faceted and interesting gameplay mechanic, but in reality they're just another part to tick off during each build. The only way to make it more involved than that is to make it so converters don't convert forever, requiring attention and re-fueling, which breaks down every one-way mission, or makes them needy, which is bad as well.

So which is it? A simple mechanic that just boils down to a new part type like solar&battery, or a complex one that puts expiry dates on all missions?

[HafCoJoe]

It seems really odd to me they went to NASA and made this whole thing so we can play out NASA's plans for a real asteroid capture, yet we can't really do real missions because you can just dump a Kerbal out there, for a 100 years if you want. It's really getting dumb.

It's been a long long time since I've heard squad say anything about life support, I see all these worrying interviews about how they're finishing career and move to multiplayer then release, and I feel like there are some really major realism holes still left in the game before they move to any of these.

I love mods, but I shouldn't have to resort to mods for extremely basic things.

Personally I believe Kerbals go through photosynthesis :I. So they wouldn't really need anything more than sunlight and water to survive and a negligible amount of resources to hibernate. Which leads me to the Mk2 cockpit where they get no light. And die.

Though a better aerodynamics model could be made. Personally I think there should be an option for each save to use the current model, or use an improved one. Same with life support and other stuff.

[regex]

So which is it? A simple mechanic that just boils down to a new part type like solar&battery, or a complex one that puts expiry dates on all missions?

While I personally don't play with them because they trivialize the need for life support, for the "base-builder" crowd having a converter of some sort that can maintain their bases indefinitely is probably a requirement. Basically after a certain point life support in the game will just end up being more parts required for every flight. In that case, life support really only becomes a consideration for the early game.

[Geschosskopf]

It seems really odd to me they went to NASA and made this whole thing so we can play out NASA's plans for a real asteroid capture, yet we can't really do real missions because you can just dump a Kerbal out there, for a 100 years if you want. It's really getting dumb.

Define "dumb". Is it not having any life support at all in stock, or is it assuming that a completely alien species, from a planet that's nothing at all like Earth, has anything at all resembling human metabolic needs? Personally, I consider imposing humanocentric life support requirements on Kerbals more wrong that assuming they have little or no metabolic needs on long trips. I mean, who's to say they don't just go totally dormant during long trips?

[Nobody]

Personally I think some form of stock life support should be added but as an optional difficulty setting so that new players who are just learning the game don't have to deal with the extra challenges it brings when trying to get a grip on the basics.

I can see 4 levels of life support difficulty in the game.

• Level 1: Everything acts like it does now.
  
• Level 2: When life support runs out the crew hibernate until resupplied/rescued.
  
• Level 3: When life support runs out the crew hibernate for a period of time before dieing.
  
• Level 4: When life support runs out the crew dies.
  

This would also work with the craft exchanges by having the life support it was designed for listed in the info so any ship that is shared will work in a lower difficulty.

[vger]

While I personally don't play with them because they trivialize the need for life support, for the "base-builder" crowd having a converter of some sort that can maintain their bases indefinitely is probably a requirement. Basically after a certain point life support in the game will just end up being more parts required for every flight. In that case, life support really only becomes a consideration for the early game.

Not necessarily true, but that all depends on how it's implemented.

What if, for instance, one could construct a biodome in space or on another world?

It'd be poppycock to expect these to survive reentry (like how solar panels fly apart). But it'd be a nice addition to the game to have the ability to gain access to a 'perpetual' source of life support. Such a thing shouldn't be easy or cheap to build though, resulting in space programs typically preferring to use cheaper air tanks and "snack compartments" to keep their Kerbals alive for missions that last less than a year.

But yeah, I think the biggest reason for having life support is to make surface bases more functional. There's a lot of other things that could be implemented that could achieve the same purpose though.

[Simon Ross]

Ultimately, it's going to come down to how complex Squad want to make the game for a new player.

KSP is TOUGH ! Us folks who have logged many hours tend to forget just how hard it can be simply to build a ship that gets off the pad as a new player.

Eventually I think Squad will add an option or options to refine the difficulty level of the game, giving new players the opportunity to focus on the basics while giving experienced players full access to all the myriad complexities.

Simon

[Giggleplex777]

Maybe have snacks make kerbals process experiments faster and increase the science created? That would be a probable reason to resupply space stations without having to worry about keeping the Kerbals alive (as they only need snacks to work faster).

[regex]

But it'd be a nice addition to the game to have the ability to gain access to a 'perpetual' source of life support. Such a thing shouldn't be easy or cheap to build though, resulting in space programs typically preferring to use cheaper air tanks and "snack compartments" to keep their Kerbals alive for missions that last less than a year.

I completely disagree with this since I feel it just trivializes the need for life support, even with such restrictions as mass or electricity. It's just another design consideration, like batteries and solar panels (to paraphrase Franklin). Your bio-dome example sounds pretty neat but at the end of the day it just removes the resource management (the interesting part) of life support. Expensive, massive, power-hungry, it really doesn't matter, it all boils down to "moar parts" so that you can ignore the resources. I did a mini-grand tour once with an all-in-one Kethane lander and one of the more interesting parts was figuring out the life support refueling schedule for the trip, especially to the outer planets. Cut it pretty close at Eeloo...

OTOH, I completely understand why that sort of thing (recyclers/converters) gets added to the mods out there: it's realistic (for the most part) and people want it.

But yeah, I think the biggest reason for having life support is to make surface bases more functional.

How does life support, in and of itself, "make surface bases more functional"?

[Tortoise]

I think they should focus on integrating FAR and Deadly-Reentry before adding life support. But sure, It'd be nice to have an option to enable life support. I don't know if They'd want to waste their time on it though.

[vger]

How does life support, in and of itself, "make surface bases more functional"?

Without needing to worry about keeping Kerbals alive long-term (preferably with something that isn't capable of mobility), there's no difference between a base, a lander, or a rover.

[Jouni]

Three points:

1. I want life support in the game. It's silly that kerbals can survive for years in tiny command pods.
   
2. Life support should be as simple as reasonably possible, because I don't want to see KSP turned into a resource management game. One life support resource is much better than multiple resources, unless there is a valid gameplay reason for having multiple resources. For example, the only valid reason for having oxidizer in the game is that jet engines burn the same liquid fuel as rocket engines. Otherwise it would be better to have just one abstract fuel counter.
   
3. We need a way to resupply stations and bases automatically, at least if they are close enough to Kerbin. Manually flying routine resupply missions is boring.
   

[Woopert]

Maybe have snacks make kerbals process experiments faster and increase the science created? That would be a probable reason to resupply space stations without having to worry about keeping the Kerbals alive (as they only need snacks to work faster).

Fully agreed.

[regex]

Without needing to worry about keeping Kerbals alive long-term (preferably with something that isn't capable of mobility), there's no difference between a base, a lander, or a rover.

Depending on how the parts are laid out there is no difference between them even with life support. But I see your point.

[Vaporized Steel]

Actually there already is food in KSP right now.

I suggest you guys to get your kerbal into a Hitchiker storage container and get into IVA mode. A hatch on the top of the module in IVA view clearly is marked "Food"

Obviously that food is actually not calculated as cargo so it's just a sign on a inside storage container without having any purpose or value.

I think I would like a stock life support system.

But there are many cool things squad could add. And I don't know their agenda. I only know their are a couple of cool mods out there that does this so I'm sure it's not the thing they would work on in near future updates.