Reddit post from HarvesteR

[Hyomoto]

The next person who says, "Random failures are okay if they aren't random." should be banned from the forums. Panels being ripped off during atmospheric flight isn't RANDOM, and the point HarvesteR was making is that RANDOM failures based on the RNG will do nothing but frustrate the player. I can't believe I have to point this out because the rest of you seem to pretend what they said was perfectly rational! He clearly goes on to say damageable parts is something that interests him, his aversion was simply to relying on 'good luck' to determine the outcome of your missions!

[MockKnizzle]

The next person who says, "Random failures are okay if they aren't random." should be banned from the forums. Panels being ripped off during atmospheric flight isn't RANDOM, and the point HarvesteR was making is that RANDOM failures based on the RNG will do nothing but frustrate the player. I can't believe I have to point this out because the rest of you seem to pretend what they said was perfectly rational! He clearly goes on to say damageable parts is something that interests him, his aversion was simply to relying on 'good luck' to determine the outcome of your missions!

This. Someone mentioned breakable panels and wheels as examples of failures in the game... the whole point is that these kinds of failures are perfectly avoidable and fair. There are well-defined circumstances where they happen, and there's isn't any random chance involved. This is totally fine. As long as the player is aware of what will cause a failure and is able to prevent it, I'm happy with all sorts of failures being in the game.

[Wanderfound]

As long as the player is aware of what will cause a failure and is able to prevent it, I'm happy with all sorts of failures being in the game.

...as long as the required prevention isn't "endless tedious micromanagement".

[Alchemist]

The failure rates must be tied to the stress levels. The current system is if you exceed the stress level it breaks. And we have 2 options: stay in the safe zone or skim the limit risking breaking the craft at any slight deviation.

Adding random component could mean probability curve of breaking the part if working near the critical stress level. What would be the outcome? Chance to survive occasional short threshold exceeding, chance to break if stay just below the threshold for too long. What options would the players have? Stay in the safe zone or risk a semi-random failure by working near the limit. Is it worth it? Most likely not, at least with mostly manual piloting that already gives this level of random factor if you try to stay near the threshold.

[tntristan12]

So, I disagree with Harv on the matter of life support, but agree on virtually everything else! I really wish to see life support in the game, but there are undoubtedly going to be mods for that in the final version so I can live with it. As for random failures, I could live with them or without them. It sounds like there will probably be a mod for that one, too.

[MockKnizzle]

...as long as the required prevention isn't "endless tedious micromanagement".

Of course. Drive slow to avoid breaking wheels, don't open folding panels in-atmosphere, pay attention to the overheat gauge (assuming it behaves in a sensible manner), avoid high-speed contact with other vehicles... failure prevention should be normal gameplay, driven by common sense.

[Tw1]

A I don't get why they never broach the idea of making certain time-based elements un-warpable. That would stop the "can't, people would warp to skip it" argument dead.

-snip-

If a space station or satellite running continuous experiments paid out a trickle science gain outside of the main physics stream, un-warpable and just provided a background science gain, that would give a use to those types of designs.

I don't think making events unwarpable is a solution- sitting and waiting is not interesting gameplay. Other options are nicer.

Consequences if you warp to long.

Like people have suggested- missing contracts, missing transfer windows, depletion of life support (Or cost of re-supplying), loss of reputation for inactivity, etc.

Or

Limit benefits that come from warping too much.

Having the main 'rewards' come in the form of points which you accumulate seems a bit of a design flaw to me.

It limits what activity can be rewarded.

I wrote a bit about this here, suggesting a more complex science system, with success also being measured by your space program's level of ongoing contribution to kerbally, rather than just tallying returns from each flight.

If a station's benefit is a trickle of science points, then warping for a long time would be an easy way to gain.

But, if having an active station simply keeps your reputation level a constant 20 points higher, warping will not net you any benefits.

Give us some late-tree "Snacks" recyclers that act like solar panels do now and it's pretty close to what we want to see.

Recyclers (which would have to be more use rate reducers, unless we have the added complexity of a waste resource.) could have a role, but having them 100% would nullify any need to plan for long distance trips.

I think a simple in situ collector would made more sense- land one in the right spot(planet/biome), and then re-fill your ship from that.

The main problems I see would be needing to anticipate the length of a mission. You'd need:

- Some planning tools,

- to test a probe,

- or leaving it to people to google.

That and the potential monotony of re-stocking bases/stations, but I already wrote about that a solution for sort of automating that.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Tw1

[rkman]

Why would life support mass increase exponentially? It would be linear with mission duration I would think.

I did not mean (nor say) that life support mass increases exponentially with mission duration. It's just that mission duration increases more or less exponentially for consecutively more distant destinations.

[Unabled]

I'm glad to see how many pro "life support"-ers there are in this thread!

I think it is something that shouldn't be left out, to me its one of those fundamental things you have to deal with when you travel in space.

Space is beautiful but also hostile, and any time you spend there is limited. Everything you need you have to take with you, and time is kind of a resource that needs to be managed with space travel. The longer the trip, the more stuff you have to bring to sustain you. Representing this in KSP is something I think worthwhile.

Life Support

• Life support should be like a time resource. This would be the easiest way to at-a-glance determine how long of a mission you can achieve with the resources you have. Time is already a big part of KSP: we have an estimated time to Apo, time to encounters, time to planned manuevers... etc. Of course planning tools would have to be expanded some to make it easier to manage.
  

This would be that dividing factor that makes really gives probes an advantage over crewed missions; you wouldn't have to plan those nearly as much or manage them as much, increasing that feeling of accomplishment with a crewed mission.

• As far as how to add it to ships, well I liked the idea of adding a tweakable option to pods for life support, you could increase or decrease depending on how much time you needed or how much mass you wanted to save. For the really long missions to the outer planets a life support part would probably be best to add, or just have the other modules like the hitchhiker module capable of carrying even more.
  

• Similar to how Squad had originally implemented the EVA prop fuel as being limited before changing it back to unlimited, I thought it would be a neat idea to make an EVA life support resource that would be unrelated to the ship's life support just to take the concept of limited time a bit further.
  

If life support on ships isn't possible, at least a type of EVA life support. Doing this would give more of a reason to take a rover with you, because then your time on surface during EVA would be limited and could bring extra life support with you on the rover. Eh, just ideas.

Random Failures

• Regarding failures....Yes I think I'm on the side that random failures are maybe not the best idea. Failures relating to the playing pushing the ship beyond limits is one thing, but things just failing just because I don't know about.
  

I was all for the concept, but after having played around with Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager and failing a mission that had 90% part reliability and 88% of a problem being resolved has been beyond frustrating. It's forced me to reload saves which is something I rarely do because it just felt like there was nothing I as a player could do to fix this, and the punishment for mission failure was too great at that point. HOWEVER, I do like the concept of having missions controllers there actively working to help a mission succeed and having that feeling in KSP would be incredible. There would just have to be more options available to resolve issues as they cropped up, or have any issues that do not result in a total mission failure at that point, just maybe reduced capabilities.

With the difficulty options, there almost isn't a good reason to not include such things to further flesh out the KSP experience for those that would like it. I hope Squad doesn't dismiss it entirely.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Unabled

[Wallygator]

EDIT : Also, people have a hard time moving away from the concept that `failure=a 100% failure` when it often is not. Let`s say the `failure` of your main engine is that when running it leaks 10 units of LF every minute. Your mission is not an automatic failure, it just got really really hard. Or it runs at 100% fuel consumption but 75% thrust.

THIS. Plus...

Reliability and Risk is a core concept in "space" anything. Currently in KSP, parts have perfect reliability. Risk is entirely based on a players construction skill, and operating capability.

RELIABILITY: Today, when we get a testing contract, we get a part which is already at 100% reliability regardless of where it is used. Sometimes we never run the testing contract and just keep using the individual part over and over when possible. We don't need totally reality here, but come on... this isn't even close.

I concur with JohnFX. Failure can be demonstrated in a multitude of ways which are fun and add to playability rather than detract. Think about how many real life missions got REALLY interesting when some small component failed and yet the mission controllers were STILL able to complete the mission! The Devs have just not thought enough about this.

RISK: This is where the player should NEVER be without control. It should always the player who makes the decisions. So for example, making a decision to utilise a newly acquired part (which has not been tested and is considered unreliable) on a deep space journey should translate into a known level of risk.

I believe there is a very powerful game mechanic lying around in this pile of concepts and discussions. It needs to be more fully explored and documented prior to deciding on its inclusion or exclusion.

Warning: slightly off-topic but not intended to hijack paragraph coming... I read in detail most every bit of news and comments from the Devs. over time, I have developed the feeling that our beloved dev team seems to have "everyone doing everything" so this means individuals who are adept at coding are also doing all the strategy and design activities and vv people who are driving the design and strategy are also pilled into coding. This model always ends up in disaster - because there is never enough time to do everything since you always have to do something else. Perhaps there now needs to be an improved IT operating model implemented wherein a planning team is created who do not touch the code but rather drive the conceptual design. So... the team need to get bigger and their delivery and organisation model need to evolve. Also I sense they have a great grasp on physics and orbital dynamics but not so good an understanding of running a space program. This is not being said in a disparaging manner - I still love this game and am in awe of the success so far by the Devs. (If you want to respond to this bit then please PM me and let us consider starting another thread rather than sidetrack this good discussion)

[Tw1]

• Similar to how Squad had originally implemented the EVA prop fuel as being limited before changing it back to unlimited, I thought it would be a neat idea to make an EVA life support resource that would be unrelated to the ship's life support just to take the concept of limited time a bit further.
  

That's an interesting idea. Life support on EVA should be a separate resource, to avoid issues of mass, but I think this makes it too exploitable.

If life support is more than a few hours, (Which would be nice, so we can still do some mucking about on EVA in orbit, and makes rescue more possible) then it would be pretty sit in a seat, move to a pod every so long, then move back to the seat.

Inless kerbals in seats can only use the Life support of the vessel they're on, but that would be inconvenient for rovers.

Idk.

I'd be like the get out and push exploit, and I don't want to see that changed.

The infinitely refueling jet pack, their bounciness, ability to right themselves etc, makes having a kerbal more fun to explore with, than just a rover.

Still not convinced about random failures- It's annoying enough when something goes wrong just because of your own mistakes.

Unless it was somehow linked to the tech tree and experimental parts- it would make more sense if the parts were being perfected, rather than extremely rapidly invented.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Tw1

[metl]

• Life support should be like a time resource. This would be the easiest way to at-a-glance determine how long of a mission you can achieve with the resources you have. Time is already a big part of KSP: we have an estimated time to Apo, time to encounters, time to planned manuevers... etc. Of course planning tools would have to be expanded some to make it easier to manage.
  

Waiting for a maneuver node or an apo is nowhere near similar to a hard time limit like life support. You're comparing two completely separate issues. I don't want a hard time limit on missions. Life support would be the same as setting a time limit that starts at launch. You can play for fifteen minutes, then you have to try again. Oh, you put a life support container on board? Great, now you can play for 1 hour, but we'll be watching and making sure you don't take longer than 1 hour! KSP is perfectly fine without LS. It just isn't needed.

[zekes]

I don't think making events unwarpable is a solution- sitting and waiting is not interesting gameplay. Other options are nicer.

-Consequences if you warp to long.

Like people have suggested- missing contracts, missing transfer windows, depletion of life support (Or cost of re-supplying), loss of reputation for inactivity, etc.

Or

Limit benefits that come from warping too much.

Having the main 'rewards' come in the form of points which you accumulate seems a bit of a design flaw to me.

It limits what activity can be rewarded.

I wrote a bit about this heresuggesting a more complex science system, where success is also measured by your space program's level of ongoing contribution, rather than just tallying returns from each flight.

If a station's benefit is a trickle of science points, then warping for a long time would be an easy way to gain.

But, if having an active station simply keeps your reputation level a constant 20 points higher, warping will not net you any benefits.

Recyclers (which would have to be more use rate reducers, unless we have the added complexity of a waste resource.) could have a role, but having them 100% nullify any need to plan for long distance trips.

I think a simple in situ collector would made more sense- land one in the right spot(planet/biome), and then re-fill your ship from that.

http://i.imgur.com/5RViAPN.png

The main problems I see would be needing to anticipate the length of a mission. You'd need:

- Some planning tools,

- to test a probe,

- or leaving it to people to google.

That and the potential monotony re-stock bases/stations, but I already wrote about that a solution for sort of automating that.

High tech drawings. I love it.

[Unabled]

Waiting for a maneuver node or an apo is nowhere near similar to a hard time limit like life support. You're comparing two completely separate issues. I don't want a hard time limit on missions. Life support would be the same as setting a time limit that starts at launch. You can play for fifteen minutes, then you have to try again. Oh, you put a life support container on board? Great, now you can play for 1 hour, but we'll be watching and making sure you don't take longer than 1 hour! KSP is perfectly fine without LS. It just isn't needed.

Hey, thanks for the reply!

Now I was just including my thoughts, really jumping off of TW1's awesome post, but you bring up some good points!

I wasn't trying to compare maneuver node/ apo times to something like a life support time, if it came across that way it was not intended.

I was just trying to provide an example of how we can almost estimate how long a mission will take and how certain moments in time have already been mapped out in the game for us. I was just trying to convey how if something like life support were included, it might be best to have it be time based instead of just a gauge of some percentage that you can't really plan much with.

Now you are correct, life support would be like a time limit that would start at launch, and put that way it does sound like a major downer.

Now I guess you could try to launch with only fifteen minutes to an hour on board if you wanted to--but I was thinking something in the realm of days like what TW1 had shown.

I don't like the sound of a time limit on missions until I think about this one thing that doesn't sit right with me:

As it is if we return a Kerbal safely to the surface of Kerbin, we are awarded reputation and everyone is happy. If a Kerbal dies, we lose rep points, and everyone is sad. If we strand that Kerbal on the Mun or in Orbit for years with no rescue and no support, no one cares....?

From the perspective of the game world, this doesn't make sense to me.

I think that for neglecting a crew member, you should be punished just as much as if you turned them in a green smear on the surface of the Mun.

Otherwise what reason is there to have probes in the game at all?

Now I don't know if the crew should just die the instant you run out of life support, maybe start deducting Rep points for every couple hours without support. Wait even longer then maybe they eventually die? I don't know, but it seems silly that the game world doesn't seem to care.

Again this would ultimately be best as just a more challenging difficulty option for those that want it, and not a default option.

[Wanderfound]

Incidentally, life support mods like TAC-LS (which does use fairly realistic mass for life support supplies) can easily provide several years of supply with just a few small parts. Kerbals are small, and Kerbin days are short; life support isn't that big a burden. The only real danger in TAC-LS is in running out of electricity, and that is easily dealt with by sensible design.

[Unabled]

That's an interesting idea. Life support on EVA should be a separate resource, to avoid issues of mass, but I think this makes it too exploitable.

If life support is more than a few hours, (Which would be nice, so we can still do some mucking about on EVA in orbit, and makes rescue more possible) then it would be pretty sit in a seat, move to a pod every so long, then move back to the seat.

Inless kerbals in seats can only use the Life support of the vessel they're on, but that would be inconvenient for rovers.

Really like the diagram you posted!

From this wiki page on Life Support Systems : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System

"Oxygen and water were rechargeable for multiple EVA's from the spaceraft's environmental control system...Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours... For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours"

Sorta branching off of that:

I was thinking about that get out and push exploit for the jetpack fuel when I thought of just having a separate EVA life support. If you could just get back in a capsule and start fresh again, then whats the point? Well make it so you only have so much EVA support in the capsule to begin with. (This would probably be more for if there were no life support in the capsules).

With Rovers you could bring more with you and yes as long as you were sitting in the chair of the Rover, your Kerbal's EVA pack would be using the Rover's extended EVA tank or some such. I've been trying to think of more in game reasons to have Rovers, like storing collected rock samples and maybe carrying science experiments, etc.

So many ideas!!!

[metl]

Now you are correct, life support would be like a time limit that would start at launch, and put that way it does sound like a major downer.

Now I guess you could try to launch with only fifteen minutes to an hour on board if you wanted to--but I was thinking something in the realm of days like what TW1 had shown.

As it is if we return a Kerbal safely to the surface of Kerbin, we are awarded reputation and everyone is happy. If a Kerbal dies, we lose rep points, and everyone is sad. If we strand that Kerbal on the Mun or in Orbit for years with no rescue and no support, no one cares....?

From the perspective of the game world, this doesn't make sense to me.

I think that for neglecting a crew member, you should be punished just as much as if you turned them in a green smear on the surface of the Mun.

Otherwise what reason is there to have probes in the game at all?

I was meaning an hour in real life time, sorry about the confusion.

I agree with you about being able to just strand kerbals, and hadn't actually thought of that. Hmm. Your rep idea is interesting. I'm not entirely against a life support system. I just think it needs to be kept simplified (TAC is too much.) As I suggested before, leave it as just ONE item (call it "snacks", "oxygen" or just "life support") Leave out all of the complicated recyclers. Make it work similar to electricity (although with a deadly consequence,) use light-weight parts so as not to make it ridiculous to plan large missions, and maybe in late-stage put in some type of life support generator similar to electricity's RTG, and it might work. If kerbals have a set consumption rate, then you can plan how many generators you need to make it a permanent station. Make the electricity requirement of the generators scale with the amount of crew, and presto. A simplified life-support system with deadly consequences that is easily managed.

At the end of the day, let's remember this is a light-hearted "tycoon" game, not a real-life simulator. Keep it fun. And explodey.