Is Squad ever going to add stock life support?

[Sig]

Heck.. I've got ~100 hours in this game and I still struggle with getting into orbit sometimes. Lifesupport would be cool as an option later on, but for me right now it'd be a game killer if it were forced on me.

[vger]

Actually there already is food in KSP right now. 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.

I've always been in favor of "snacks" being the life support resource, if it ever gets implemented. It's cute and fun, fits the established CANON as far as Kerbal humor, is concerned, and there's no logical reason it can't be an analogue for IRL life support. It's a limited resource, has mass, and if there were a way of making it renewable, it's something that can be 'grown' in an off-world garden.

[Tex]

Hmm... I am of the opinion of adding this feature as a toggle-able option in the Settings. Having it just "there" and forcing you to deal with it would definitely put off newer players who are trying to do their firsts of everything. Heck, even I haven't meddled with LS yet simply because I have so much to learn.

[Endersmens]

Ok to anybody who suggested SQUAD asking the authors of FAR/DRE/TAC if they could just add them right into the game...harvester said directly why they haven't and wont do this. If you havent noticed, all of these mods break every single update. Which would mean SQUAD would have to fix all the codes from those mods every update, and they arent familiar with them. It would be much easier to wait and write the code themselves so that it wont break every update.

[Sauron]

You could take a (much lighter) Better Than Starting Manned approach such that pods come with enough life support that a new player can land on the Mun/Minmus without any major issues, but missions longer than a few weeks call for life support equipment. (This has the nice upshot of making certain types of pod meaningfully different!)

Though for what it's worth, I think people overestimate the difficulty of the basics in KSP. Launching and resource managing is pretty easy stuff. Adding a bit more for players to track doesn't make the game much harder in the areas where it's actually hard (or rather, has a steeper learning curve) like docking/rendezvous and (good) spaceplane design. But even then, looking back, I'd have enjoyed KSP a hell of a lot more if it came with a much higher difficulty. As it was, there wasn't a whole lot of time between novice with a good working understanding of how rockets operate to functionally a veteran (I got to orbit with my first rocket and to the mun without realizing maneuver nodes were a thing. Durr ). Maybe a few weeks. People freak out about making the game too hard for new players, but it really is too easy (and a lot of the difficulty came/and to a lesser extent still comes from bad game design like old SAS or clunky maneuver nodes).

So let's make KSP harder but in meaningful areas and as a conscious game design choice. Life support is one of these.

[Nobody]

Though for what it's worth, I think people overestimate the difficulty of the basics in KSP. Launching and resource managing is pretty easy stuff. Adding a bit more for players to track doesn't make the game much harder in the areas where it's actually hard (or rather, has a steeper learning curve) like docking/rendezvous and (good) spaceplane design. But even then, looking back, I'd have enjoyed KSP a hell of a lot more if it came with a much higher difficulty. As it was, there wasn't a whole lot of time between novice with a good working understanding of how rockets operate to functionally a veteran (I got to orbit with my first rocket and to the mun without realizing maneuver nodes were a thing. Durr ). Maybe a few weeks. People freak out about making the game too hard for new players, but it really is too easy (and a lot of the difficulty came/and to a lesser extent still comes from bad game design like old SAS or clunky maneuver nodes).

The reason people are worried about new players and life support is because of how difficult things like rendezvous, docking, and transfer windows are. Life support would add a time limit to doing things like that would effectively make them even harder.

My first rendezvous/docking attempt in Kerbin orbit took several days of game time to get things lined up.

[vger]

You could take a (much lighter) Better Than Starting Manned approach such that pods come with enough life support that a new player can land on the Mun/Minmus without any major issues, but missions longer than a few weeks call for life support equipment. (This has the nice upshot of making certain types of pod meaningfully different!)

This. - 10char

[NoMrBond]

When starting a new game it would be nice (eventually) if there were a bunch of options essentially ranging from the current sandbox all the way through to whatever the game supports which would be considered career hardmode

Budgets and Currency; Yes/No (Earn currency by missions and spend currency to send mission -or- Unlimited money)

Reputation; Yes/No (Earn (or lose) reputation by completing missions and advancing Kerbalkind (or exploding) -or- No repercussions for failure)

Aerodynamic modelling; Simple/Advanced (Current simple aerodynamics -or- More realistic aerodynamics requiring fairings and part shielding etc)

Life support; No/Simple/Advanced (No supply or environmental needs (unlimited snacks, air and EVA time), Kerbals consume Food and Air, Kerbals consume resources, produce waste, need to stay the correct temperature and other concerns)

Re-entry heating; No/Yes (Headfirst re-entry in a command seat? no problem -or- Requires correct re-entry angles and the correct shielding)

Science; No/Yes/Hard (No research / start with all tech, Normal earn/buy research progression, lower research returns / higher part research costs)

People could mix and match their own game types to suit whatever they felt like, feel like playing for science but not having to worry about money, or start with all the tech but have a budget restriction oriented game, or anything else the player wants

Also a 'restrict to stock' option when starting a new game would be nice (such that, regardless of what mods/plugins are also installed, that save is entirely stock when loaded and played)

[MKI]

The three major game play additions that need to be added for this game to be more than "alpha testing" are:

1. life support

2. better aerodynamics

3. re-entry heating

Without these three game game is still a realistic space sim, but not much more than that. Any of the three should be their own update, as each need to be added with newer parts and or changes to old ones. Personally i do not see probes ever becoming more viable without a complicated and unnecessary change to how probes work (such as remote tech) without adding life support.

Life support can be as simple as a new gauge of resources labeled "life support". Having Kerbals takes it up at a fixed rate. Without getting to complicated this simple resource would make Probe missions viable as long term missions, Kerbal missions more realistic and daring (reputation points really would become a big issue if you can't keep missions planned well) and add a whole new gameplay mechanic with only a few extra parts. (extra life support parts in a similar manor as RCS pods.)

Life support really is the easiest of the three game play additions that should be added for this game to feel more like a full game, rather than an alpha build. Now when will it come? That is another story but i would be extremely disappointed if it were not added. If there is one thing that holds our real life space programs, its how to keep a person supplied during long missions. (Along with radiation shielding but thats a WHOLE other story haha)

[Kasuha]

The three major game play additions that need to be added for this game to be more than "alpha testing" are:

1. life support

2. better aerodynamics

3. re-entry heating

To be honest I can imagine the game going final without either pretty well. But should I sort them by importance as I see it, better aerodynamics should go first. As soon as aerodynamics are done half-decent way, ships will start breaking up on reentry even without any heating.

Reentry heating comes next, some degree of danger coming from it is desirable in my opinion but I believe special parts for reentry should be necessary only if you're planning particularly fierce descents.

Life support is in my opinion completely unnecessary. It just forces players to prefer probes over Kerbals which in my opinion goes against the spirit of the game. I'd be completely fine with life support staying as a mod for those interested.

Of course whether devs will or will not add life support to the game is completely up to them.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd prefer life support to be just a single resource, an abstraction that makes it more manageable. More complex mechanisms than that should be left to mods, IMO.

Ideally, pods would have some minimal amount of life support built in, enough for a return trip to one of Kerbin's moons at most. Life support "pantry" parts for longer missions, and a very massive, large, and energy-intensive "recycler" part that creates the life-support resource from electricity. The units of the resource should be kerbal-hours or kerbal-days.

I'd rather see life-support implemented than reentry or better aerodynamics; life support would apply to missions to all celestial bodies, while reentry and better aero would only apply to five bodies. Of course, it would be best to have all three implemented.

[rkman]

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.

That would mean a small storage of 'life support' would be enough regardless of the amount of time the mission takes. Going to the Mun or going interstellar (if ever): no difference wrt the amount of life support needed, aside from crew size.

I oppose that solution because i think the point of life support would be to increase the challenge involved in manned missions. Manned mission to Duna? You'd need to bring enough life support to last like one or two years, probably going to be a multi-launch operation.

Edited May 16, 2014 by rkman

[LethalDose]

Ok to anybody who suggested SQUAD asking the authors of FAR/DRE/TAC if they could just add them right into the game...harvester said directly why they haven't and wont do this. If you havent noticed, all of these mods break every single update. Which would mean SQUAD would have to fix all the codes from those mods every update, and they arent familiar with them. It would be much easier to wait and write the code themselves so that it wont break every update.

First off, lots mods don't break every update, because the stock code that the mods' code interact with doesn't change. But, let's assume that statement is even remotely true...

The point of adding these mods into stock is that these modules of code would be maintained with the stock. These mods break every update because the mod authors can't update the mods before the update is released. How could they? AFAIK, The modders get the new code at the same time as the other players (modder's involved in the experimental releases would be an exception to this). They can't fix their mods until they know how they'll break.

If SQUAD incorporates the code of those mods into the stock, then SQUAD will be maintaining the code, and they won't be breaking game. Besides, since SQUAD is more familiar with the code than any mod author could be, integrating the mods into the code would make the functionality originally introduced by the mods break less on updates.

[Nobody]

That would mean a small storage of 'life support' would be enough regardless of the amount of time the mission takes. Going to the Mun or going interstellar (if ever): no difference wrt the amount of life support needed, aside from crew size.

2 factors your missing out on are the speed of recycling and the cost/weight of the recycling parts. If the part can't make good air as fast as the crew uses it then they will die. If the parts are heavy or expensive you might not be able to make every ship fully self sufficient.

You would be likely to see players put unmanned depots into orbit of planets they will visit a lot so a ship can trade waste for fresh supplies and then leave the probe core to handle the recycling while waiting for the next ship to arrive

[rkman]

2 factors your missing out on are the speed of recycling and the cost/weight of the recycling parts. If the part can't make good air as fast as the crew uses it then they will die.

I did not miss out on those, it's covered by "aside from crew size".

Of course recycle capacity must be enough to handle the waste production of the crew. That's so self-evident i did not think it worth mentioning.

My point is that replacing a couple 100 of tons worth of life support stock by a few tons of equipment that makes life support out of electricity is making it easy to the point of it being cheaty.

[Red Iron Crown]

My point is that replacing a couple 100 of tons worth of life support stock by a few tons of equipment that makes life support out of electricity is making it easy to the point of it being cheaty.

I think that such a recycling part should be very massive (>50tons), so that it's only worthwhile versus stores for the longest of missions or for stations/bases.

[Commander Zoom]

If SQUAD incorporates the code of those mods into the stock, then SQUAD will be maintaining the code, and they won't be breaking game. Besides, since SQUAD is more familiar with the code than any mod author could be, integrating the mods into the code would make the functionality originally introduced by the mods break less on updates.

Counterpoint - this would (1) make SQUAD, not the various modders, responsible for checking and updating all of that additional code for every single update (e.g. your job is to watch twenty gauges, and now five more have just been added - have fun!); and (2) unless they recoded it all themselves, taking nothing from the existing mods but example and inspiration, they would know that code far less well than the current authors/maintainers.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Commander Zoom

[CaptRobau]

I also think that a single Life Support resource is enough for a game like KSP. It's simple to grasp, but still allows a wide range of implementations.

One of the problems with how life support is often implemented in mods is a disconnect with living space. To go Mars, astronauts don't simply need an oxygen tank and a CO² scrubber, but also a spacecraft that's spacious enough to live in for months at a time. My idea would be to make Life Support and Living Space the same thing. Only parts with CrewCapacity would produce Life Support, but only half of the number of Kerbals that can get into that pod, cabin, lab or whatever it is. Want to not care about a 3-man space lab in orbit (Mk1-2 has 3 crew capicity and the Lab 2, meaning only 2.5 Kerbals are supported indefinitely)? Add a crew cabin to it. If you want to go the Mun à la Apollo? You'll start out with LS supporting 2.5 Kerbals (Mk2 Lander Can + Mk1-2). After you detach the lander the Mk1-2 can support the 1 Kerbal remaining indefinitely, while the Lander Can can't because it can only support 1 out of 2 Kerbals. So they have time limit. When they meet back up, ditch the Lander Can in orbit and return they'll have a Mk1-2 full of Life Support and 1.5 Kerbal's worth of LS production to get back to Kerbin.

Combining this system with a science multiplier if you bring multiple Kerbals with you, then there'd be a system in place that would introduce some planning into manned spacecraft construction and reward player s that manage to get a 10 or 100-man crew to another planet/moon in career mode.

[Tw1]

-snip-

Combining this system with a science multiplier if you bring multiple Kerbals with you, then there'd be a system in place that would introduce some planning into manned spacecraft construction and reward player s that manage to get a 10 or 100-man crew to another planet/moon in career mode.

I would be a big fan of a system that works this way.

[r4pt0r]

life support would then be added as an Eva resource right? so you cant just climb out to survive the 1 year trip to jool?

[allmhuran]

I don't think the "KSP is too hard already" argument is a very good one (on this topic or any other). KSP is fun precisely because it is hard. Some may find it easier than others, but I think for most people landing on the Mun the first time was a "yay" moment.

Fortunately KSP has a very good natural difficulty curve, and a life support mechanic fits very nicely into that curve. It wouldn't be needed for your first few dozen launches while you learn the basics of rocket building, or the dozen launches after that when you go to the Mun and Minmus. Just give all manned modules enough for a couple of months worth of snacks and people learning the game will never need to worry about it.

life support would then be added as an Eva resource right? so you cant just climb out to survive the 1 year trip to jool?

You can't go into rails warp with kerbals on a ladder, so unless you're willing to travel to Jool at a maximum of 4x warp, I don't see this being an issue.

[r4pt0r]

-snip

You can't go into rails warp with kerbals on a ladder, so unless you're willing to travel to Jool at a maximum of 4x warp, I don't see this being an issue.

you cant put a kerbal on a ladder then warp from tracking center?

[allmhuran]

If you head to the tracking station with a kerbal on a ladder you will be warned that "the game can't save at this time".

[Red Iron Crown]

You can't go into rails warp with kerbals on a ladder, so unless you're willing to travel to Jool at a maximum of 4x warp, I don't see this being an issue.

Really? (Not mine, but funny and awesome, I can't share it enough)

[allmhuran]

That's a command chair. True, it's not counted as a command module at the moment, but that's already a mistake that needs to be fixed anyway (not being able to populate them prior to launch is such a pain).