Can we talk about Life Support?

[klgraham1013]

There are no other games like KSP that use time based mechanics. For that matter, there are no other games like KSP. It's just apples and oranges.

Being a new genre doesn't disclude it from the lessons learned in the old genre's.

- - - Updated - - -

You know what is also a great challenge of space exploration? Leaving Earth. I guess we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals past the Mun in KSP either, huh? Oh wait, I almost forgot, it's a game. I'm sorry but trying to draw parallels like that is a fallacy. There is a balancing point between simulator and game, Squad has made that balancing point clear. They have said again and again they do not want to add life support.

Why do people insist on extrapolation as a defense? I am all for the "fantasy" of space travel. Going to distant planets, and all that jazz. That's very much a part of KSP that I love.

"It's a game" is not a defense. It's much to broad a term for that.

[vger]

You know what is also a great challenge of space exploration? Leaving Earth. I guess we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals past the Mun in KSP either, huh? Oh wait, I almost forgot, it's a game. I'm sorry but trying to draw parallels like that is a fallacy. There is a balancing point between simulator and game, Squad has made that balancing point clear. They have said again and again they do not want to add life support.

Sorry, but no. It isn't that we can't. It's that our sense of what civilization is so messed up that nobody wants to pay for it. We have the capacity to get beyond the moon. We've had it for a LONG time. We're just so stuck on outdated economic concepts that we're stunting our growth as a species.

And with TIME, our capacity will only improve. R&D... there's some time-based mechanics for you.

The reason Kerbals do it and we haven't, has nothing to do with technological capabilities, and everything to do with a drastically different sense of values. Though given their rate of failure, they also take it a BIT too far...

Edited October 17, 2015 by vger

[Alshain]

Why do people insist on extrapolation as a defense? I am all for the "fantasy" of space travel. Going to distant planets, and all that jazz. That's very much a part of KSP that I love.

"It's a game" is not a defense. It's much to broad a term for that.

Why do people insist on realism as a defense. "life support is one of the great challenges of space exploration" is not a reason to add it to KSP. Just because that is how it is in real life is not an reason for how it should be done in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

Being a new genre doesn't disclude it from the lessons learned in the old genre's.

It absolutely does if it conflicts with the genre, as with KSP. With KSP you often timewarp for years. Time based mechanics such as life support would conflict with the time warp game mechanic. You can't timewarp for years to get to Jool if you have to stop and send supplies to all your stations. It is a disruption, an intrusion, and an irritation. It adds grind and proposes a detriment to the game... that is why the "it's a game" defense is so popular. We don't want a grind fest, we want a game.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Alshain

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

...We don't want a grind fest, we want a game.

"We" don't want life support.

"We" want life support.

Use "I" instead of "We" next time, how about. It makes you come off as "I am the official designate who should talk about this matter."

(Not just talking about you, Alshain. It's just that your quote was easier to find)

[Pthigrivi]

Alshain, as Im sure people have mentioned, Im quite sure if life support were to be implemented it would be toggleable in the difficulty settings. You might also notice that in the scheme Ive suggested you can add a few parts (at a weight penalty) to fully and indefinitely replenish life support with no resupply runs. Fret not.

[Frozen_Heart]

Though I do want life support, that system sound much too complex.

I think it should be like electric charge. A few parts to store/generate a single life support resource which only gets used up when the ship is loaded. This would stop the problem of constantly having to switch flights to resupply every 5 mins.

Some simple storage containers would do nicely for storing life support (though capsules should have a bit built in)

Some station/Base greenhouses should generate it at the cost of being very large and heavy.

[Wjolcz]

Though I do want life support, that system sound much too complex.

I think it should be like electric charge. A few parts to store/generate a single life support resource which only gets used up when the ship is loaded. This would stop the problem of constantly having to switch flights to resupply every 5 mins.

Some simple storage containers would do nicely for storing life support (though capsules should have a bit built in)

Some station/Base greenhouses should generate it at the cost of being very large and heavy.

I agree. Basically what I've already said.

[Holo]

You know what is also a great challenge of space exploration? Leaving Earth. I guess we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals past the Mun in KSP either, huh? Oh wait, I almost forgot, it's a game. I'm sorry but trying to draw parallels like that is a fallacy. There is a balancing point between simulator and game, Squad has made that balancing point clear. They have said again and again they do not want to add life support.

No, we shouldn't be able to send Kerbals beyond the Mun...

...without the life support systems that would make it possible.

[vger]

Alshain, as Im sure people have mentioned, Im quite sure if life support were to be implemented it would be toggleable in the difficulty settings. You might also notice that in the scheme Ive suggested you can add a few parts (at a weight penalty) to fully and indefinitely replenish life support with no resupply runs. Fret not.

"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment. OK for you."

I don't see why everyone is wigging out about station resupplies though. Wouldn't the advanced stages of life support be self-sustaining? Y'know... space gardens?

Edited October 18, 2015 by vger

[Alshain]

Alshain, as Im sure people have mentioned, Im quite sure if life support were to be implemented it would be toggleable in the difficulty settings. You might also notice that in the scheme Ive suggested you can add a few parts (at a weight penalty) to fully and indefinitely replenish life support with no resupply runs. Fret not.

You can't toggle parts. You are suggesting a rather hefty number of them added. Toggling things off hasn't worked so well for us in the past, like the crappy ISRU system that insists on having me delete thousands of contracts only to have them replaced with more ISRU contracts I won't do. That's another issue, but we all know if life support is done, simply toggling it off won't be enough just from past experience. Even ISRU doesnt have as many parts as the OP suggests. No single ancillary game mechanic has 10 support parts.

- - - Updated - - -

"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment. OK for you."

I don't see why everyone is wigging out about station resupplies though. Wouldn't the advanced stages of life support be self-sustaining? Y'know... space gardens?

What is the difference between that and what we have now? If you aren't actually doing anything, why add anything at all?

Edited October 18, 2015 by Alshain

[Pthigrivi]

Well dude you may have to deal with the fact that they may add features that are widely popular.

And yeah frozen and veel, I'm sympathetic to that criticism. First off, the whole happiness deal is really more related to a skills overhaul than to LS and I think could be considered separate. So what we're really asking is do we need scrubbers as a part. I like them, as they make for a mid tech-tree extension option before earning indefinite LS, and prevent life support from becoming put-a-greenhouse-on-every-vessel. But if we are going to integrate ISRU and multiple converters there would at least be 2 strategies to choose from.

[Alshain]

Life support's popularity is dubious at best. There are many people that like it and just as many people that don't. That is the precise reason it needs to stay as mods.

[Holo]

What is the difference between that and what we have now? If you aren't actually doing anything, why add anything at all?

That's like asking why we have building upgrades, when fully-upgraded buildings do the same thing as buildings used to anyway.

The key areas that life support will change are medium-duration missions; typically interplanetary flights. There, a lot will change - spaceships will need to consider the life support and space requirements of the Kerbals, avoiding the ridiculous case right now where you can send a Kerbal to Eeloo on a command chair.

[klgraham1013]

What is the difference between that and what we have now? If you aren't actually doing anything, why add anything at all?

The same reason we have solar panels. Anyway. I think we can agree to disagree on this one.

edit: There are many examples of games with self-sustaining resources. It doesn't mean those resources are meaningless.

[Capt Snuggler]

avoiding the ridiculous case right now where you can send a Kerbal to Eeloo on a command chair.

this is the clincher for me. the fact that this is possible means that from a technical standpoint all crew pods are redundant and therefore pretty much aesthetic and the "science" mechanic feels like a flimsy half-baked reason for bringing kerbals who are otherwise largely just pointless mass anyway.

but bringing kerbals allows for significantly higher science gains (if you care about that). but kerbals dont breath or eat or require any kind of input at all, so probes end up being redundant. this all leaves the game feeling hollow.

I think LS with good mission planning tools combined with a revised science and Kerbal XP system would go a long way to filling out KSPs hollow middle.

[Wjolcz]

this is the clincher for me. the fact that this is possible means that from a technical standpoint all crew pods are redundant and therefore pretty much aesthetic and the "science" mechanic feels like a flimsy half-baked reason for bringing kerbals who are otherwise largely just pointless mass anyway.

but bringing kerbals allows for significantly higher science gains (if you care about that). but kerbals dont breath or eat or require any kind of input at all, so probes end up being redundant. this all leaves the game feeling hollow.

I think LS with good mission planning tools combined with a revised science and Kerbal XP system would go a long way to filling out KSPs hollow middle.

I agree. Surprisingly this kind of thing is why I really don't like to fly manned missions. It just doesn't feel right to have 4 kerbals in one hitchhiker on their way to Jool, Duna or some other outter planet. Must be very cosy in there.

[Pthigrivi]

Do people think a Kerbal Alarm Clock like system would be good enough? Flags could appear for LS exhaustion along with transfer windows, intercepts and maneuvers. I also think there should be a red date ("+50days" for instance) under the flight listing in the Tracking Station, and a red marker could appear in-flight along the flight path with a scroll-over exhaustion date if it were within one orbit.

[Wjolcz]

Do people think a Kerbal Alarm Clock like system would be good enough? Flags could appear for LS exhaustion along with transfer windows, intercepts and maneuvers. I also think there should be a red date ("+50days" for instance) under the flight listing in the Tracking Station, and a red marker could appear in-flight along the flight path with a scroll-over exhaustion date if it were within one orbit.

I would like that. KAC is needed even without LS.

[Capt Snuggler]

Do people think a Kerbal Alarm Clock like system would be good enough? Flags could appear for LS exhaustion along with transfer windows, intercepts and maneuvers. I also think there should be a red date ("+50days" for instance) under the flight listing in the Tracking Station, and a red marker could appear in-flight along the flight path with a scroll-over exhaustion date if it were within one orbit.

I think the functions of transfer planner would also be needed. Obviously this mission planning tool should be found in the Mission Control Building.

The alarm clock and mission planner functions would need a nice clear interface to walk you through how to plan a mission. certain options would be hidden in lower tiered buildings or until certain research contracts (I hate that term) have been completed.

I personally like the idea of having the planning screen be a whiteboard with Gene and his team scribbling down the mission details and diagrams as you select the parameters.

mission parameters:

• start body and orbit - select a drop down list or manual input (or option for surface launch) Kerbin is default with default starting orbit of ~100km.
  
• destination body and orbit - a drop down list or manual input. default orbit is minimum insertion burn. ie. edge of gravity well.
  
• mission time - extra time in orbit or on surface. ie. not transferring.
  
• crew number - how many mouths to feed/lungs to fill? (I prefer two resource LS ie. Life Support and Refuse)
  
• payload mass - landers + rovers + lander fuel + experiments + toys
  

This would then calculate the LS and ÃŽâ€v requirements at your current date (epoch?). You could then shift your departure date forwards or backwards on a calendar and watch the ÃŽâ€v and LS change.

there would then be options to:

"save mission plan" - Saves plan to be worked on again later.

"schedule launch" - adds the launch window to the calendar and sets an alarm. the alarm should pop up somewhere on screen a few weeks before the launch date and then count down.

schedule mission events - add tasks to the mission time line like: "take science reading","launch probe","launch lander", etc.

the mission plan (LS and ÃŽâ€v requirements) could be loaded in to the engineer thingy in the VAB/SPH to help with vehicle design.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[klgraham1013]

...

My only issue with locking utilities behind paywalls is it creates an unnecessary difficulty in the early game. KSP's difficulty should come from getting to the next farthest planet, not false restrictions. I'm looking at you, maneuver node.

[monstah]

I think the functions of transfer planner would also be needed. Obviously this mission planning tool should be found in the Mission Control Building.

Oh, yes, please! So much could be done on that building we don't ever go into.

[Capt Snuggler]

My only issue with locking utilities behind paywalls is it creates an unnecessary difficulty in the early game. KSP's difficulty should come from getting to the next farthest planet, not false restrictions. I'm looking at you, maneuver node.

I do see your point about the manoeuvre node but I think the issue is that in KSP paywalls are in the wrong places.

If it were my choice, the restrictions placed on the players tool-set would be based on what data the player had(or had not) gathered, not on what building they had. this way they would have more control over steering their space program in a direction of their choosing. there should also be multiple ways to gather the same data to accommodate different play stiles.

eg: if the player wants to put kerbals on Duna, they could launch a telescope and point it at Duna to start gathering data. after that Duna's orbit is revealed in map view and encounters are shown on your trajectory.

or send a probe and measure Duna's atmospheric hight and density. then aero breaking trajectories are shown in map view.

you can still launch for Duna without the data, but you would be shooting blind. still possible but not assured and probably at tremendous cost of time and fuel.

Yes, all this data can be "cheated" by looking online (wiki) but the player would have to do the math as the tools are not available in game until the data is gathered. and anyway if the player wants to "cheat" they will. no one else should care anyway. Its essentially just "story" for the player.

------------*edit*------------------

I know strayed off the life support topic here but I think all these things are intertwined and have a huge effect on the overall pace of the career game. I currently don't really bother playing career because it is so empty, but I also don't want to give up on it because it has so much potential.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Pthigrivi]

Not at all Snug that's great. One thing I do worry about is the mission planner estimating based on optimum transfers and then the player hitting an intercept that runs long or needs an inclination correction and getting frustrated when they run out of fuel or LS. I mean it's just as bad now with us having to guess but I feel like if the game tells you one thing and it doesn't work that would be a problem. Maybe all it needs is a safety margin field. A lot of the fun of the game is doing Apollo 13 when things go wrong. If the planner is just an estimator unlinked from actual active flights it seems kind of limited, so I'm wondering if the flight plan might not be able to update based on how a mission progresses? Does this get silly and over complicated when you start docking and detaching modules?

There has to be a really simple interface that helps you plan without becoming tedious and distracting.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Pthigrivi]

So yeah, here's the thing, I know its part of the ethos of this game that people dive in and start flying and mistakes are part of the fun. All of that is great and in the early carreer you really should have very little information and be encouraged to experiment. But later in the game as things progress and players mount more and more difficult missions I really do think being aided with better information gives players the ability to make better guesses and reduces repetitiveness and grind. The wiki helps, and the engineer report is a step in the right direction, but we should really be able to just play the game without having to go to online dV maps and transfer calculators. I think that's true now, and would become even more important if LS was included. Like dV, LS is one of those things you want to estimate before you launch. This is hard because so much complexity is possible in ship design, but the good news is there's a limited number of bodies to explore. So really an estimator only has to produce 2 numbers: Mission time and delta V. If dV and LS days are calculated in the VAB then you don't actually need to enter things like occupant number and payload in the planner; you should be able to just select a starting body and target body from a pair of drop downs and see:

Optimum days until next transfer window: x [set alarm]

Optimum days until intercept: x [set alarm]

dV to orbit [100km]: x

dV to circularize: x

dV to transfer: x

dV to capture [100km]: x

dV to surface: x

total dV: x

You can repeat this this for the return and pretty easily see what your total mission dV and optimum mission time would be. Then when you go to the VAB and design you'll at least have a sense where your targets are, and can guess at safety margins with an educated set of expectations. All of this could of course come with building upgrades, so that new players aught not be daunted and advancing players could make informed decisions.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[klgraham1013]

New players need to know what their mistakes are; what they're doing wrong. Without the proper information, it's that much harder to learn, and YouTube shouldn't be the answer. Players shouldn't have to bang their head against a brick wall until they miraculously figure it out. That's not how teaching works.

That's my only concern with withholding vital information.