Can we talk about Life Support?

[Wjolcz]

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.

Can't give rep, so I will only say that it's true. Many of my friends are discouraged to keep playing because of the lack of vital info. Then I tell them to download KER and check the Cheat Sheet on the wiki. But they don't do that because don't consider learning fun, I guess, so there should also be a bunch of in-game tutorials focused around needed dV to get to orbit, what's TWR, etc.

[Capt Snuggler]

Mistakes stop being fun at some point, but when exactly is that?

for me:

mistakes on the pad are funny (most of the time).

mistakes in Kerbin SOI are tolerable.

mistakes in say Duna SOI are face-palm moments.

mistakes any further away are a rage quit.

especially when the in-game tools do not provide enough information to help me prevent those mistakes.

I still maintain that the player should have to gather the data on planets (orbits, mass, etc) for it to be available in the planning tools. a rough Dv and LS estimate (guestimate) could be provided with out data but with a very large margin for error and the player should be warned about the lack of reliable data.

You can still launch if you want. the game should not disallow anything but instead advise against it.

"we do not have accurate data on this planet to calculate transfer time. maybe we should send a probe first?"

Edited October 22, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Pthigrivi]

"we do not have accurate data on this planet to calculate transfer time. maybe we should send a probe first?"

This is maybe the first bit of fog I can get behind.

[regex]

"we do not have accurate data on this planet to calculate transfer time. maybe we should send a probe first?"

This sort of thing is way too "gamey", even for KSP. Kepler was correctly mapping orbits as far back as 1619, perhaps without a great deal of precision, but good enough to find the best transfer window for sure. If you can see the object through telescope and have plotted its motions, you should have no problems plotting the correct transfer time and delta-V to get you roughly in the area of the target.

[Capt Snuggler]

This sort of thing is way too "gamey", even for KSP. Kepler was correctly mapping orbits as far back as 1619, perhaps without a great deal of precision, but good enough to find the best transfer window for sure. If you can see the object through telescope and have plotted its motions, you should have no problems plotting the correct transfer time and delta-V to get you roughly in the area of the target.

you don't have to heed Gene and Wernher's advice. If the player wants to get out their pen and paper and work it out them selves then more power to them.

I'm only suggesting the in game mission planners estimates should become more accurate as you discover more about a planet (body). use of the planning tool could be skipped entirely if you like. think of it less as a tool and more like an in-game "friend who is really good a KSP".

The inaccuracy of early estimates would mostly be due to a massively inflated safety margin added by your "nervous advisor's".

In sandbox you would have accurate estimates by default.

***these are just rough ideas and likely to be poorly though out.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[regex]

you don't have to heed Gene and Wernher's advice. If the player wants to get out their pen and paper and work it out them selves then more power to them.

I'm only suggesting the in game mission planners estimates should become more accurate as you discover more about a planet (body). use of the planning tool could be skipped entirely if you like. think of it less as a tool and more like an in-game "friend who is really good a KSP".

That's patently ridiculous. If I have the exact same information as the in-game advisor and can math a better plan than a computer because of a fudge-factor paywalling the feature, the feature is worse than useless. It's most certainly not a "friend who is really good at KSP". It punishes new players for being ambitious for no reason and gives an advanced player no reason to even bother with the feature until it becomes accurate.

The inaccuracy of early estimates would mostly be due to a massively inflated safety margin added by your "nervous advisor's".

A safety margin for new players or early in the career is a good thing to help while the player builds skill. Intentionally misleading the player to make things more difficult early on, while the player has access to good information, is a very poor feature.

[Pthigrivi]

I would argue that even perfect information on ideal transfers could be misleading. In a given window there's a spread between minimizing dV and minimizing flight time, and the difference can significant. So long as the game made it clear to new players that it was a rough estimate and encouraged them to pad their supplies or send a probe to test their assumptions first I think giving the best information possible is the most fair move.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[regex]

I would argue that even perfect information on ideal transfers could be misleading. In a given window there's a spread between minimizing dV and minimizing flight time, and the difference can significant. So long as the game made it clear to new players that it was a rough estimate and encouraged them to pad their supplies or send a probe to test their assumptions I think it's fine.

Inaccuracies with the flight plan are a fact of life when you don't have a perfect pilot, for sure. In that respect, any sort of "advisor" in the game should definitely recommend padding supplies and fuel, but it should recommend those based on accurate calculations of flight times and transfer windows.

[John FX]

1 solution to just being able to calculate orbits yourself from wiki data would be if every time you start a career game a new system is generated procedurally from a seed where if you enter 0 as the seed you get the current solar system.

Then you would need to actually sit and watch the stars and planets for years to work out their orbits, like keppler had to...

I fully support a fog of science so to speak which would hide surface data and orbital data until you actually get out into space and examine the other bodies properly.

In my opinion this is the only situation where life support would have a real meaning because currently if you know you are going for example to the moon you need 2 days of supplies if you are going to minmus you need 2 weeks of supplies and so on, every single body is precalculated so you just have that amount of life support.

This never ever changes. You will always need the same amount of life support unless there is some form of accident. Has been said in the thread, many people will just looking at the wiki and add that amount of life support making it just extra coding for not much gameplay.

Another point is that as many people have mentioned already the addition of life support would depend on squad adding so many other features to support the functionality of it that myself I do not think it will ever happen.

[Pthigrivi]

Procedural system is a no go, and you'll notice when finding an intercept that there's often a huge range in terms of possible flight- times. I think so long as you could easily ask for estimates and set alarms you'd just be in a much better position to fine tune your transfers in flight. If anything adding LS highlights these trade offs and encourages more thoughtful maneuvers.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Capt Snuggler]

That's patently ridiculous. If I have the exact same information as the in-game advisor and can math a better plan than a computer because of a fudge-factor paywalling the feature, the feature is worse than useless. It's most certainly not a "friend who is really good at KSP". It punishes new players for being ambitious for no reason and gives an advanced player no reason to even bother with the feature until it becomes accurate.

A safety margin for new players or early in the career is a good thing to help while the player builds skill. Intentionally misleading the player to make things more difficult early on, while the player has access to good information, is a very poor feature.

you're patently ridiculous. but ok fair enough. I'm not exactly keen on more paywalls either, but trying to come up with a way of returning a little discovery and uncertainty back in to the thoroughly charted and documented linear solar system. but yeah, obscuring readily available data probably isn't the way to go about it.

the more I think about it the more I realize that most of the systems (Kerbal XP and classes, science points, tech tree, probe control, communication) all need to be better developed.

on an other note. there would need to be some kind of huge science/money/rep reward for successfully completing a crewed interplanetary mission with life support enabled. the more days the bigger the reward. maybe something more than science/money/rep? did the devs say "NO" to in-game trophies and achievements?

[regex]

you're patently ridiculous.

Yeah, that was harsh, sorry.

I guess my big objection to those sorts of "progression" is that they make an already tough game even tougher on the new player. The progression is backwards in KSP; things get easier the more you learn. The problem with career mode as it stands is that it is very hard to do things early on, which makes a very high learning barrier at the beginning. "Paywalling" useful features and information just doesn't make sense because KSP isn't a traditional sort of game.

I'm not exactly keen on more paywalls either, but trying to come up with a way of returning a little discovery and uncertainty back in to the thoroughly charted and documented linear solar system. but yeah, obscuring readily available data probably isn't the way to go about it.

You've posted much better ideas before.

That's also a problem with KSP; there is no variance in play. Once you've been everywhere there's nowhere left to go. Sure, you can extend play by exploring more in-depth (I did a circumnavigation on KAX electric props once to grab all the biome science, was actually pretty cool) or setting yourself challenges but at the end of the day you've got to get really creative to keep interest.

Or install mods.

Maybe that's the thinking?

the more I think about it the more I realize that most of the systems (Kerbal XP and classes, science points, tech tree, probe control, communication) all need to be better developed.

No kidding?

Personally I think career mode should be scrapped entirely and designed from the ground up as a single system. It's not a very fun or rewarding experience right now, it's incoherent and grindy.

Life support as a feature is deep and rewards planning. It also gives incentive to sending probes first to see how long things take, that kind of stuff. Yes, after a point and with a strong wiki there's only adding more parts and mass, but it's very rewarding the first time you have to deal with it. It also gives an urgency to rescue missions and penalizes careless acts like sending a Kerbal one-way to the surface of Eve just to nab a surface sample. Unfortunately it also requires some planning and management features that we simply don't have.

Edited October 22, 2015 by regex

[Starwaster]

Regex suddenly has me wanting to toss about 20 Kerbals down to Eve in Career Mode just to see what happens.....

[Wjolcz]

designed from the ground up as a single system. It's not a very fun or rewarding experience right now' date=' it's incoherent and grindy.

[/quote']

I agree with this. Simply adding features and trying to balance them to fit the already existing Career Mode is flawed and must be a pain for the Devs. And it's a pain to play it stock. I seriously have nothing against (once the LS, KER-ish stats and Probe Communications are added to stock) a complete redesign of the way the career works. I would completely restart from scratch my advanced career save just to play the way it should be played.

Replace the low and mid tier buildings with the ones by bac9 and we get a game that can be called finished and wait for it's sequel.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Veeltch

[Starwaster]

I would completely restart from scratch my advanced career save just to play the way it should be played.

Unfortunately, not everyone will agree with you on 'the way it should be played'.

[klgraham1013]

the more I think about it the more I realize that most of the systems (Kerbal XP and classes, science points, tech tree, probe control, communication) all need to be better developed.

Personally I think career mode should be scrapped entirely and designed from the ground up as a single system. It's not a very fun or rewarding experience right now, it's incoherent and grindy.

By George, I think they're on to something!

[Pthigrivi]

Man guys, I play stock and have a great time. There are issues sure, but suggesting they should completely start over is kind of absurd. Obviously the building tiers and skills are unfinished. The tech tree is fine, really its experiments themselves that need work.

[regex]

suggesting they should completely start over is kind of absurd.

Not to derail the thread, but ... no, it's not absurd, it's how some people feel about the incoherent collection of unrelated features calling itself "Career Mode".

[Capt Snuggler]

No kidding?

what I mean is its very difficult to fix/develop any one system in isolation from the others. they really need to be developed as a whole with each system feeding in to the others in a meaningful and intuitive way. otherwise you end up with very shallow disjointed game mechanics like we have n... I've said too much.

like one of the key reasons for wanting LS in the game is to help separate and define the roles of Kerbals from Probe cores. 99% of the time they're doing the exact same job! planting flags and science reports excluded. but then with LS all you have done is made the kerbals harder to handle (dying more often than before). probes then become ludicrously easy by comparison. introduce control signals and remove direct real time control when out of range (not enough bandwidth/signal delay what ever). then you risk making probes tedious. maybe add advanced functions to sweeten the deal? scripted automation? queued control input? basic autopilot? sshhhh, thats a dirty word around here.

both kerbals and probes are the instrument through which the player interacts with the world. but I think the method of control should be completely different but complementary.

• direct control in real-time for kerbals but with dependency on finite LS.
  
• simple queued command scripts for probes but no LS dependency.
  

if the kerbals are incapacitated from lack of LS, KSC could remote control the probe and save the mission. or if a probe is in a tight spot needing fine control, a kerbal could remote control from a local orbit. then you have reasons to have both probes and kerbals on a mission not one or the other.

*edit* im making an assumption there that kerbals do not die when out of LS but rather "take a permanent nap".

Edited October 22, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Pthigrivi]

Not to derail the thread, but ... no, it's not absurd, it's how some people feel about the incoherent collection of unrelated features calling itself "Career Mode".

No man its okay, I totally respect you and think you're a crazy smart guy. I just think expecting the devs are going to just throw out 2 years of work is not realistic. Nor do I think its remotely necessary. New aero is great, Roverdude and Porkjet's work is fantastic, contracts and balance are coming along really well. Ive worked on games, its fun and hard work, and inevitably you have to construct things in a bit of a piecemeal manner, and you constantly have to go back over your work and all the rules and mechanics and make adjustments and revisions to get things right. Thats what squad is doing and obviously if we're all here they're doing something right. I just feel like its more productive and helpful to give feedback with a bit of a realistic sense of what could be improved without throwing out all the great progress thats been made. I actually agree with you that at the moment things are a bit grindy. A lot of other things seem to be working but feel opaque and difficult to understand or predict. The question is where are the gaps? With so much going well, where are points where the experience becomes derailed? We're talking about LS right now, but involved with that challenge is a deeper question about how do players discover the information they need to play the game. Thats really important and fundamental but could be fixed without starting from scratch.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[regex]

I just think expecting the devs are going to just throw out 2 years of work is not realistic.

Personally, I don't think it's realistic to expect the devs to add, much less even consider adding, life support, especially considering Twitter comments from Max. Nor do I expect either to happen. Doesn't mean I'm not going to discuss why this aspect of the game is bad.

E:

I just feel like its more productive and helpful to give feedback with a bit of a realistic sense of what could be improved without throwing out all the great progress thats been made

Well, that's where our thinking differs: I don't think a lot of great progress has been made. Kerbal professions are terrible, for the multitude of reasons already pointed out in multiple threads, contracts are mediocre at best, for the multiple reasons pointed out in multiple threads, science and the tech tree are pretty substandard, for the multiple reasons pointed out in multiple threads, I don't even know why strategies are in the game, except to give me more money when I'm done with the tech tree, critical features that would help new players in career mode are paywalled... It's a mess that really can't be fixed except by going back to beginning and starting with a vision. Edited October 23, 2015 by regex

[Pthigrivi]

Who knows man? They've mentioned it before, they have to have thought about it. Maybe for 1.2? I certainly don't expect them to take my suggestion, but I think its fun to talk about what could work. Obviously we both do.

[Pthigrivi]

E:

Well, that's where our thinking differs: I don't think a lot of great progress has been made. Kerbal professions are terrible, for the multitude of reasons already pointed out in multiple threads, contracts are mediocre at best, for the multiple reasons pointed out in multiple threads, science and the tech tree are pretty substandard, for the multiple reasons pointed out in multiple threads, I don't even know why strategies are in the game, except to give me more money when I'm done with the tech tree, critical features that would help new players in career mode are paywalled... It's a mess that really can't be fixed except by going back to beginning and starting with a vision.

Wow thats a pretty negative outlook man. I mean you're on these boards a lot, obviously you've found a way to enjoy yourself.

[mattinoz]

I would have thought it fitted nicely in to Squads Description of Expansion Packs from 2 years ago. I'd also think 2016 after a couple U5 updates would be a good time for Squad to seriously look at the first expansion pack.

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/47730955705/expansions-dlc-and-the-future-of-ksp

So this is what we mean when we say Expansion Packs for KSP. We’re not talking about small content bundles, we’re talking about major game-changing sets of features, like Multiplayer, or Colonization. Things that add not just content, but new gameplay possibilities. Things that might not fit the initial concept very well, but we think are too cool to just cut off forever.

I would think Life support would be an important game play mechanic for Colonization and pretty handy in Mutliplayer as well.

[klgraham1013]

• direct control in real-time for kerbals but with dependency on finite LS.
  
• simple queued command scripts for probes but no LS dependency.
  

This sounds like a decent solution to me.

- - - Updated - - -

No man its okay, I totally respect you and think you're a crazy smart guy. I just think expecting the devs are going to just throw out 2 years of work is not realistic.

Killing your darlings is one of the first things you learn as a creative person. While I agree with some of your points, if it doesn't work, the time you spent on it is irrelevant. Get rid of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow thats a pretty negative outlook man. I mean you're on these boards a lot, obviously you've found a way to enjoy yourself.

It's probably called sandbox.

- - - Updated - - -

I would have thought it fitted nicely in to Squads Description of Expansion Packs from 2 years ago. I'd also think 2016 after a couple U5 updates would be a good time for Squad to seriously look at the first expansion pack.

http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/47730955705/expansions-dlc-and-the-future-of-ksp

If one of the core challenges of space exploration was left for an expansion, I would be extremely disappointed.