[0.24.2] Snacks! A simplistic approach to life support

[tg626]

I love this idea, very in keeping with the kerbals as presented in the stock game. (PS I ate all the snacks) will it function in modes besides career?

[tgruetzm]

It will work in sandbox mode, however most of my plans are designed around penalties affecting career mode functionality. This is one of the reasons I'm trying to think of other interesting ways to affect snack deprived Kerbals. Affecting reputation and science efficiency is great but only works in career mode.

[redmario14]

Perhaps grumpy Kerbals could just refuse to pilot the ship entirely? So you have to send snacks to allow you to control the ship at all?

[passinglurker]

Perhaps grumpy Kerbals could just refuse to pilot the ship entirely? So you have to send snacks to allow you to control the ship at all?

Anything wrong with the penalty being purely symbolic outside of career mode?

The problem with methods that basically make snacks electric charge for kerbals is first if you render the kerbal useless then he might as well be considered dead anyway, and second you can bypass the penalty by sticking the kerbal in a crew can and flying via probe, and outside of career mode you would have next to no penalty whats so ever. Having hunger affect the kerbals courage stupidity and badass stats might work but IMO I don't see a way to penalize kerbal abuse with any weight or bite to it outside of career mode and keep thing simple and non-lethal.

[tgruetzm]

Snacks are almost ready for public consumption! I released a development alpha build(linked from the first page). I haven't run into serious issues, please let me know if you find any issues.

Hope you enjoy.

[TheKutKu]

On average, how many times a kerbal day a kerbal attempts to eat?

Also, the 1rep/day penality is, IMO not enough, because reputation can be easily earned. A fund penality would be better.

Otherwise, good work! i love this idea, and i also love that it doesn't add new parts

[passinglurker]

On average, how many times a kerbal day a kerbal attempts to eat?

Also, the 1rep/day penality is, IMO not enough, because reputation can be easily earned. A fund penality would be better.

Otherwise, good work! i love this idea, and i also love that it doesn't add new parts

why would a hungry kerbal cost you money? if anything you save money not feeding him. 1rep/day is probably because this is just a proof of concept so far it needs testing before it can be given a real balance pass.(also if that kerbal is a year out from resupply on the surface of duna that rep penalty adds up)

[tgruetzm]

why would a hungry kerbal cost you money? if anything you save money not feeding him. 1rep/day is probably because this is just a proof of concept so far it needs testing before it can be given a real balance pass.(also if that kerbal is a year out from resupply on the surface of duna that rep penalty adds up)

That was exactly my reasoning for -1 rep per kerbal per snack. When you're on Duna without snacks at 10000x time acceleration your reputation falls FAST. It will eventually be configurable to set the difficulty as you please.

Kerbals attempt to eat around 2 times per day. 1/4 snacks each time.

Edited August 15, 2014 by tgruetzm

[TheKutKu]

I find that the rep penality isn't enough, a bigger rep penality or an exponential one would be better.

[RoverDude]

I like the rep penalty. And I would totally love to see an MKS version of this as an option now that I'm breaking the tight coupling to TAC-LS

[tgruetzm]

Does anyone know how I can get vessels from the existing save file to load snack resources before the vessels is activated in the game?

[passinglurker]

Out of curiosity why did you choose to give the snacks mass? the weight they add and their inconsistent rate of consumption might throw off some delta V projections(also where does the waste go? wrappers are not a gass they can't be harmlessly dissipated into space part of why I suggested massless snacks aside from their containers already high dry mass was that one could assume a snack less void was simply full of trash of equal weight without adding a second trash resource.)

I find that the rep penality isn't enough, a bigger rep penality or an exponential one would be better.

Unless you nerfed the penalty based on how far away the kerbal is that would get out of hand really fast, but if you nerf the penalty based on distance that would throw off the balance of any greenhouse mod like MKS that decides to support this.

[tgruetzm]

I don't really like the idea of mass-less snacks. I'm assuming trash/human waste would be dumped at some point. The snack weight of the mk1-2 is less than it's monoprop weight. The hitchhiker is a bit heavier at .8 tons, but it also has a ton of snacks well not quite.

Does TAC have mass-less resources? I haven't used it in a while I don't recall.

[passinglurker]

I don't really like the idea of mass-less snacks. I'm assuming trash/human waste would be dumped at some point. The snack weight of the mk1-2 is less than it's monoprop weight. The hitchhiker is a bit heavier at .8 tons, but it also has a ton of snacks well not quite.

Does TAC have mass-less resources? I haven't used it in a while I don't recall.

TAC has different waste resources to match up with their life support resources so no one breaks those conservation of matter physics laws by eating a snickers. but this is kerbal afterall so logic is bent to suit game play all the time so they might just chuck the trash or outright pretend trash doesn't exist its your mod you are the one putting in the effort to code it, but I do know the ISS doesn't shoot trash out of an airlock cause its solid and as a result is a debris hazard instead they pile it all up in the cargo container that brought it there and let the craft burn up on reentry so its at least within my suspension of disbelief that the snacks and their trash are assumed to be considered part of the containers dry mass, but I could just be alone in thinking like this.

[tgruetzm]

Unless you nerfed the penalty based on how far away the kerbal is that would get out of hand really fast, but if you nerf the penalty based on distance that would throw off the balance of any greenhouse mod like MKS that decides to support this.

I find that the rep penality isn't enough, a bigger rep penality or an exponential one would be better.

I haven't used MKS, but I think 1 rep per Kerbal per snack interval is probably a poor model for Snacks. If you have thousands of rep it won't really matter at 1 loss per Kerbal. I'm thinking maybe a percentage or a stepped approach of some sort where if you have more rep, you lose more when Kerbals go hungry.

Edited August 15, 2014 by tgruetzm