[1.0.5] Snacks! Kerbal simplified life support v0.3.5

[RoverDude]

Nice. Is there a version of MKS/OKS which uses Snacks instead of TAC in the works?

Already done - link in OP

[tgruetzm]

Wow, looks awesome so far.

Now we only need a hardmode (optional) and some snack containers

Thanks, a "hard mode" is sort of coming. I'm going to work on more interesting penalties, including a setting to kill kerbals that run out.

Snack containers are not going to be part of the base mod, sorry but I don't think they're necessary.. See the OP for some excellent alternatives by whyren.

[tgruetzm]

I think I've created an interesting mechanic for when Kerbals pass out when they are out of snacks. Basically what happens is that when a crewed vessel is out of snacks, there's a random chance every few minutes that the Kerbal will pass out for a short duration(currently a random value up to 5 seconds).

When a Kerbal passes out a copy of the current state of all flight controls is created. Until the Kerbal wakes up a few seconds later, the previously applied control state will be applied to the vessel. So if you're pitching up, you will continue to pitch up or translating up it will continue to apply that control. The idea is due to snack deprivation, the Kerbal didn't realize the controls were no longer supposed to be applied.

I think this creates a very interesting/risky situation. You can attempt to fly ships with snack deprived Kerbals, but you risk the safety of the mission by doing so. It would be best to attempt a resupply. It's definitely not recommended to fly a plane or attempt powered landings. Maneuvers in space should be relatively safe for the cautious.

This is one of the most complicated feature I've implemented thus far, so naturally It still needs quite a bit of work/polish before it's ready for a release but I thought I'd share where I was thinking about going with this.

Edited September 3, 2014 by tgruetzm

[passinglurker]

well now that you've gone and done it its hard to say no ought to be interesting to try out.

[Whyren]

...This is one of the most complicated feature I've implemented thus far...

It's a cool idea and I'm gonna try anything you throw in with an open mind. I think, though, that your user base is made of people either daunted by or tired of the complexity of other more complicated life support mods. Snacks was founded on simplicity and I think some of the really cool ideas in this thread (randomly freezing the ships controls, baking surface samples) starts to get away from the root simplicity that attracted us. Life support needs a consequence to be meaningful and I think you have simpler options: Rep Loss (current), simple complete pass out, and death. They would even work well as easy, medium, hard difficulty settings.

At the end of the day, you have to follow your artistic vision on this, but as one of your fans and avid users, I hope this doesn't become hard-coded, default behavior but one of several consequence options (maybe between easy and medium).

Anyway, I hope none of that sounded like I want to have your baby less than I do.

[bigbadben]

I think whyren's suggestion is cool. easy, medium, hard == rep loss, pass-out (semi-death until snacks are re-filled), perma-death.

However, your stance on snack containers makes sense. ISS doesn't have huge containers of food floating outside their habitat. And longer trips would require more living room, anyways, so your method scales up. Your stance also encourages a method of 'growing' snacks, as opposed to just heaping up 20 containers. However you decide to implement 'growing', will look forward to it. I hope it's keeps with the overall feel of your mod, too.

But I think the partial loss thing kinda detracts from the original appeal of your mod, which is pretty cool, simple, and quirky.

And, simplifying it will be less work on you for coding

Edited September 3, 2014 by bigbadben
i dum

[tgruetzm]

I appreciate the feedback. You guys have influenced my design decisions before. Simplicity is very important for this mod but if the code to create a simple feature is complex it's ok in my mind.

I do envision most of the additional consequences to be optional as a difficult setting, but I don't envision having preset levels. Personally I think the idea of the only consequence being reputation loss is too simple. The Kerbals should directly be affected from snack deprivation. The idea of hibernating a Kerbal is definitely simple, but in my mind offers little in the form of a fun game play mechanic. The idea that Kerbals can still function without snacks, but that they simply are impaired I think is a good solution to this problem. The game play mechanic is simple. When a Kerbal is out of snacks he can still be controlled, but may be difficult to actually accomplish what you want.

Maybe it won't turn out to be as fun as I envision, but so far what I've tested I think adds a fun/quirky way to be able to still control snack deprived Kerbals.

[Dreamdealer]

Excellent mod. Thank you. I lie the idean of non-lethal life support, however I don't think that taking control out of the player is a good design decision. In the long run it would just lead to frustration and quickload.

How about slowing down controls responsiveness for hungry Kerbals like after pressing Caps Lock?

[Krevsin]

I respectfuly disagree with Whyren's suggestion, as I think that what tgruetzm is simple enough and does not complicate the mod in any meaningful way. Quite the opposite, I think it creates a very interesting dynamic which instead of simply turning snacks into what electric charge is to probe parts gives them a unique flavour which separates the manned and unmanned command modules in an interesting way instead of simply making them the same but in a different packaging (a problem which I have with most other life support mods out there).

However, I do agree that an option for perma-death would be good. Not as an in-game choice, but as an alternate mod configuration with a different download.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Krevsin

[passinglurker]

I appreciate the feedback. You guys have influenced my design decisions before. Simplicity is very important for this mod but if the code to create a simple feature is complex it's ok in my mind.

I do envision most of the additional consequences to be optional as a difficult setting, but I don't envision having preset levels. Personally I think the idea of the only consequence being reputation loss is too simple. The Kerbals should directly be affected from snack deprivation. The idea of hibernating a Kerbal is definitely simple, but in my mind offers little in the form of a fun game play mechanic. The idea that Kerbals can still function without snacks, but that they simply are impaired I think is a good solution to this problem. The game play mechanic is simple. When a Kerbal is out of snacks he can still be controlled, but may be difficult to actually accomplish what you want.

Maybe it won't turn out to be as fun as I envision, but so far what I've tested I think adds a fun/quirky way to be able to still control snack deprived Kerbals.

for the record most of my opposition to spazzy and hibernating kerbals was really about whether it would be worth the time and effort to implement which is moot now that you've done it anyway and so I think its worth trying out and if it isn't fun for the nonlethal life support crowd then you can just lift the code and roll it in a kerbal sanity mod instead . oh but that reminds me. how are you handling someone just tossing the hungry kerbals in a crew can and flying via probe? rep, money, and science penalties are simple and good because you can't bypass them in the way I just described.

[tgruetzm]

for the record most of my opposition to spazzy and hibernating kerbals was really about whether it would be worth the time and effort to implement which is moot now that you've done it anyway and so I think its worth trying out and if it isn't fun for the nonlethal life support crowd then you can just lift the code and roll it in a kerbal sanity mod instead . oh but that reminds me. how are you handling someone just tossing the hungry kerbals in a crew can and flying via probe? rep, money, and science penalties are simple and good because you can't bypass them in the way I just described.

In the current implementation, you can't bypass a Kerbal from accidentally interfering with the controls. If a vessel has crew members that are out of snacks, then the control modifications are applied to the vessel. I'm undecided whether I should change this or not. Technically if a Kerbal is present on the vessel(regardless of if a probe is supposed to be controlling), in their lackadaisical state they could still accidentally mess up your control.

However, I do agree that an option for perma-death would be good. Not as an in-game choice, but as an alternate mod configuration with a different download.

I agree, this will likely be set via configuration file only. I'm not sure I want to manually publish separate versions though, I will provide instructions as to what to change for different functionality. I think in-game choices are bad for this only because when you see a vessel running low and you are using the death option, you shouldn't be able to quickly bypass it.

Edited September 3, 2014 by tgruetzm

[bigbadben]

what about combining all three? run out of snacks,

stage 1: rep decreases and random control inputs (although I disagree with control input thingy, games hard enough flying now and could mean insta-death anyways when planning tranfers, intercepts, etc.)

--after some specific amount of time,--

stage 2: craft is unresponsive (semi-death) A probe core could bypass this, but that is realistic anyways.

--after some specific amount of time,--

stage 3: perma-death

This way, you could combine it all, with the amount of time between stages balancing how hard you think your mod should be.

[Superfluous J]

what about combining all three? run out of snacks,

stage 1: rep decreases and random control inputs (although I disagree with control input thingy, games hard enough flying now and could mean insta-death anyways when planning tranfers, intercepts, etc.)

--after some specific amount of time,--

stage 2: craft is unresponsive (semi-death) A probe core could bypass this, but that is realistic anyways.

--after some specific amount of time,--

stage 3: perma-death

This way, you could combine it all, with the amount of time between stages balancing how hard you think your mod should be.

Even better, have 4 stages that can have their timings set and even eliminated:

Rep Loss. normally starts at time 0 days

Random Control Inputs. Normally starts at time 1 day. You also lose rep.

Passed Out. Effectively ends the previous step. Normally starts at time 3 days. Still losing rep.

Death. Kerbal vanishes and returns to astronaut complex if permadeath is off in the KSP settings. Normally starts at time 14 days (or whatever). At this point we're not tracking any more so no more rep loss or anything else (though you get the rep hit for killing a Kerbal)

Instead of based on days, maybe based on times that attempted snacking has failed. So the first (and all subsequent) time(s) it fails you get a rep loss. The 3rd time it fails you get Random Inputs, the 6th time it fails they pass out, and the 30th time it fails they die.

[passinglurker]

I think passing through stages towards death is creeping in the wrong direction what sets this mod apart from others and more importantly what brings people poking around to look at it is that it is non-lethal and simple to use. at the very least it should not be the default public facing configuration though making a config option for it would be fine. Also I don't think the spazing kerbal penalty should apply to kerbals on EVA they don't carry a lot of snacks so its easy for them to run out and extra 5 second burns with rcs can seriously mess you up when trying to get back in the capsule where there are still loads of snacks.

also you should have one of those pop ups like the ones that tell you that a certain science experiement can't be performed here appear when a kerbal is interfering with the controls so people know what is going on.

[Krevsin]

I agree with passinglurker, the multiple stage snack deprivation seems a bit too complicated.

[Lunaran]

^ Same. ^

People can, of course, play however they want, but: I don't understand the point of a part that generates snacks.

I don't get this about other life support mods that provide recyclers and everything, too. If a mod adds a limit, then adds a part that makes the limit go away again, what's the point of having the mod? If it's just a matter of putting that part on every ship, then you're back to playing the same game you were before you installed the mod, with slightly heavier ships. If the ultimate goal that a mod adds is to achieve a state of maintenance-free stasis, what new dynamic, what depth does it add to the game other than the feeling that you have life support systems on your ships?

If the snack oven is a science lab, that I'm sort of okay with, because it's a big heavy part that changes your whole plan if you decide to bring one, but a magic part that nullifies the need for kerbals to eat ever again should have some other drawback or it nullifies the whole mod in the process. It still has to interact with some other game system somehow. (not continually jumping outside for surface samples. that's silly.)

Maybe every snack made spends a tiny bit of fuel? (If you imagine that your LFO is hydrolox then you need it for water, and if you imagine that it's RP1 you need the petroleum to make the candy wrappers. (and if you imagine that it's UDMH, you're probably already using TAC-LS.) That makes it a serious tradeoff on long voyages that you'd still have to plan for.)

Can you somehow spend money to create snacks remotely? Maybe the kerbals start eating the equipment, or pages out of their manuals - pages you'll never get back.

Can Kerbals eat science?

[tgruetzm]

^ Same. ^

People can, of course, play however they want, but: I don't understand the point of a part that generates snacks.

I don't get this about other life support mods that provide recyclers and everything, too. If a mod adds a limit, then adds a part that makes the limit go away again, what's the point of having the mod? If it's just a matter of putting that part on every ship, then you're back to playing the same game you were before you installed the mod, with slightly heavier ships. If the ultimate goal that a mod adds is to achieve a state of maintenance-free stasis, what new dynamic, what depth does it add to the game other than the feeling that you have life support systems on your ships?

If the snack oven is a science lab, that I'm sort of okay with, because it's a big heavy part that changes your whole plan if you decide to bring one, but a magic part that nullifies the need for kerbals to eat ever again should have some other drawback or it nullifies the whole mod in the process. It still has to interact with some other game system somehow. (not continually jumping outside for surface samples. that's silly.)

I completely agree, which is why there is yet to be a snack generator in the stock mod. I really think it nullifies the point when an extra part or two can basically remove the purpose of the mod entirely.

My plan is slightly different(although subject to change). Snack ovens will be part of the science lab, and they will require a planetary sample(to extract the elements to create something edible) and lots of electricity to produce a finite amount of snacks. I think this allows you to extend mission duration, yet makes you work for it too.

Can Kerbals eat science?

Yes, well converted planetary samples.

[Superfluous J]

^ Same. ^

People can, of course, play however they want, but: I don't understand the point of a part that generates snacks.

I don't get this about other life support mods that provide recyclers and everything, too. If a mod adds a limit, then adds a part that makes the limit go away again, what's the point of having the mod? If it's just a matter of putting that part on every ship, then you're back to playing the same game you were before you installed the mod, with slightly heavier ships. If the ultimate goal that a mod adds is to achieve a state of maintenance-free stasis, what new dynamic, what depth does it add to the game other than the feeling that you have life support systems on your ships?

I agree with the basic idea here, however I still want limited snack generation. Here are ways to do it without "simply adding another part."

High power/mass requirements. Anything short of a ground base or space station would be totally impractical.

High time requirements. If it takes longer to make snacks than your Kerbals eat, you're just forestalling the eventual lack. Goes hand in hand with the above, as presumably having enough high-time-requirement things will generate snacks for your Kerbals.

High tech requirements. If you can't generate snacks until the highest tier, then you're going to be in trouble. Especially if you play the only way you should and severely limit the science you get from stuff, forcing you further afield before you're really ready for it.

I personally think all 3 of those should be true of any system that generates snacks. It should be big, heavy, power-hungry, and take a long time to work. It should be a way to make permanent ground bases and space stations possible without boring re-supply missions, but also require life support management on your actual traveling vessels.

[passinglurker]

eh I'm not keen on no baking till you hit the top of the tech tree. there is hardly any game to play when you get that far. there are valid point about why snacks should be unsustainable for a long term stay though, but people won't be happy when you exhaust the surface samples on dres and you needed those to restock to reach eloo. the mechanic should replenish eventually enough for the occasional interplanetary cruise passing through just not fast enough for a permanent colony.

Alternately there is my random yield harvests idea from a few pages back which will mean you will have to still run supplies from time to time just not as frequently or like clockwork but that sort of planning might add to the complexity. In the end I say we wait and see tgruetzm cooks up.

[mckamx]

I think passing through stages towards death is creeping in the wrong direction what sets this mod apart from others and more importantly what brings people poking around to look at it is that it is non-lethal and simple to use. at the very least it should not be the default public facing configuration though making a config option for it would be fine. Also I don't think the spazing kerbal penalty should apply to kerbals on EVA they don't carry a lot of snacks so its easy for them to run out and extra 5 second burns with rcs can seriously mess you up when trying to get back in the capsule where there are still loads of snacks.

also you should have one of those pop ups like the ones that tell you that a certain science experiement can't be performed here appear when a kerbal is interfering with the controls so people know what is going on.

my $0.02: I started using Snacks because:

1. It was simple

2. It was amusing

3. It was consistent with the overall tone of KSP

4. I could add it to my existing game w/o huge disruption (because the penalties were not extreme)

5. The relatively mild penalties for running out of snacks lets me decide how important snack supply is for my playing style. I tent to treat running out of snacks as a BAD THING, exceeded only by killing kerbals. However, that is my choice: other players can make other choices.

[tgruetzm]

I've done quite a bit of tinkering around implementing something that affects a Kerbal's ability to pilot a ship when they are snack deprived. Initially I went with the idea that a Kerbal would "pass out" intermittently and apply a consistent control state for a short period. This turned out to be ok, but it was difficult to fine tune into something that was noticeable enough and frustrating(yes I'm designing functionality with the intent of being frustrating!).

It's been mentioned a few times here that delayed reactions may be a good solution to this. Thank all of you who suggested this as an option. I implemented a solution where a Kerbal piloting a ship has a consistent delay in their reactions to control inputs. This value is configurable and defaults to 150ms(0 will turn off the functionality entirely). I think this is the best way to handle this problem. It provides a consistent limitation, is just slightly frustrating/challenging yet still able to accomplish pretty much any task and it definitely pushes you to get that snack re-supply ship out the door.

This is very close to being release worthy, but I still need to do more testing myself and I need to play snacks on my regular save for once. It gets boring quickly launching minimal ships with infinite fuel to just test functionality... but I think this mod is worth it.

[Gristle]

Posted on the GitHub Issue tracker for this project:

I have two 3 man capsules that have been in orbit now for 2+ Kerbin days (MET) and still have a full snacks compartment. Are they not hungry? Do they not like the Space Snacks I selected for them?

KSP 0.24.2 32-bit, Snacks 0.3.1 alpha. Many other mods installed (Nove Punch 2, Orbital Science, Station Science, IR, Final Frontier, Kosmos, Klockheed Martian, Tiberdyne Shuttle, ATM, and several others.

[tgruetzm]

Posted on the GitHub Issue tracker for this project:

I have two 3 man capsules that have been in orbit now for 2+ Kerbin days (MET) and still have a full snacks compartment. Are they not hungry? Do they not like the Space Snacks I selected for them?

KSP 0.24.2 32-bit, Snacks 0.3.1 alpha. Many other mods installed (Nove Punch 2, Orbital Science, Station Science, IR, Final Frontier, Kosmos, Klockheed Martian, Tiberdyne Shuttle, ATM, and several others.

At the absolute minimum a kerbal could eat once in a 2 kerbin day period, but it sounds like you're over that. It's really a random time between 0(now) and 12 hours from that. Over a long period this roughly averages to 6 hours

I've noticed some behavior like this before. I think I've fixed it in the current code base. Would you mind testing it for me if I give you the latest?

Edited September 7, 2014 by tgruetzm

[peadar1987]

Is there any chance you could add in an option to remove the random element from the Kerbals' snacking, and set it to once every X number of hours, every time? I'd like to know exactly how long my snack supply is going to last for a given mission.

[tgruetzm]

Is there any chance you could add in an option to remove the random element from the Kerbals' snacking, and set it to once every X number of hours, every time? I'd like to know exactly how long my snack supply is going to last for a given mission.

I'll take it into consideration. I don't think the effort would be very much to implement it as an option, but the mod was built around the idea of being quirky/slightly unpredictable to fit with my perception of Kerbal behavior.