Can we talk about Life Support?

[JPLRepo]

3 hours ago, eddiew said:

That said, I like @RoverDude's implementation of LS - probably because it's more analogous to electricity than to food+water+air. He has kerbals become unresponsive, such that they stop being crew and aren't able to pilot/report/EVA, but they don't die. Get a rescue boat out there and feed them, they'll jump back to action. That's a pretty good compromise, imho, and is the only version of LS I'd have any interest in.

 

TAC LS has a similar system available to players.

[eddiew]

19 hours ago, JPLRepo said:

TAC LS has a similar system available to players.

Fair enough - I don't remember it having one last I tried it, around 0.90 or so, but it's nice that it's there either way  

[Capt Snuggler]

The whole game is essentially just fun based around the rocket equation. With manned space flight the Life support system's mass and duration is part of that equation.

Life support is to Kerbals as Electricity is to probe cores, but with kerbals requiring both resources making mission management and craft design more important.

Probes = Easy = minimum reward

Kerbals = Hard = maximum reward

Its so frustratingly obvious.

 

 

*****edit****

LS constraints could help with the issue of generating science over time also. science kerbals could be left on the surface ticking away generating science but this would be limited by finite LS resources.

inevitably there would be a "LS generator" part but that would be heavy power hungry and require maintenance from and engineer Kerbal to keep the efficiency up.

sure, eventually you could have a 6 LS generators on a surface base supplying a team of science kerbals generating huge amounts of science and or money but then the game would finally have the career mode "economy" it so desperately needs.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Capt Snuggler

[sal_vager]

The suggestion of life support has come up many times, so much that we needed a common thread for it

[worir4]

@Capt Snuggler raises an important point. Currently it is easier to send a kerbal to space than an unmanned craft.

There is no reason not to send a kerbal when a kerbal can do more than a probe and without the risk of totally losing control.

If life support is added then the choice between probe and kerbal becomes meaningful.

Do i pick the easier option of sending a probe to Jool, or the risky and more challenging but more rewarding option of sending a kerbal?

[Capt Snuggler]

simple fact is currently you can wack a Kerbal in to a single seat pod and send them off in to the cosmos. there is no penalty or requirements they don't even need power to stay alive.

its just silly. the games got it backwards. why are probes harder...????

Kerbals should require a minimum of Life Support (O2) and Heat (from electric charge)

all arguments to the contrary are invalid. srsly think about it.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Capt Snuggler

[Death Engineering]

As a long time player, I prefer to use one of the various LS mods to increase the challenge (and stakes) by adding the limits LS provides, but adding LS to stock without also adding alarm functions similar to Kerbal Alarm Clock would be a mistake. IMHO, they are inseparable. 

[eddiew]

Just realised this is a massive necro thread. Apologies to whoever gets a like notification on your year-old post, for some reason the forum jumped me in at the middle and I didn't read the dates 

[Capt Snuggler]

@eddiew its ok, Sal merged the recent thread with a previous popular thread regarding LS for house keeping.

Topic is still relevant as stock game features still don't make sense. eg: Probe missions being harder than crewed missions.

[eddiew]

Ah, right, cheers.

WRT probes being harder than kermanned - that is only true if you don't mind leaving them at their destination forever. Most people don't seem to like doing that though. Assuming you return your kerbals, the mission very much is harder, because you have to double the journey and handle the return to ground. I can't think of a good reason why the game should further encourage you not to use your entertaining little green people. Let us not find excuses to remove the kerbals from kerbal space program  

[Tyko]

5 hours ago, eddiew said:

Ah, right, cheers.

WRT probes being harder than kermanned - that is only true if you don't mind leaving them at their destination forever. Most people don't seem to like doing that though. Assuming you return your kerbals, the mission very much is harder, because you have to double the journey and handle the return to ground. I can't think of a good reason why the game should further encourage you not to use your entertaining little green people. Let us not find excuses to remove the kerbals from kerbal space program  

I think the addition of the Sample Return Canister really made probes too OP. I liked that, before, if I wanted full science from Goo / Material Bay I had to either bring the whole thing home or send a kerbal to pull the experiments out. This felt a lot more balanced with a dramatic increase in science return from a crewed mission. With the Canister it's possible to collect most of the science from a biome without ever setting foot there.

[Capt Snuggler]

20 hours ago, eddiew said:

WRT probes being harder than kermanned - that is only true if you don't mind leaving them at their destination forever.

The game doesn't penalize for this, so it is true.

Personal sentimentality shouldn't be filling in for incomplete game mechanics.

 

15 hours ago, Tyko said:

I think the addition of the Sample Return Canister really made probes too OP. I liked that, before, if I wanted full science from Goo *snip* With the Canister it's possible to collect most of the science from a biome without ever setting foot there.

possible but tedious, which is pretty fair.

if kerbals had a Life support clock ticking (finite LS resource) this could be a sufficient constraint to allow science Kerbals to produce "science over time".

This would give reason for longer and larger missions. proper space stations and surface bases would be necessary to support long term crew, more in-depth logistics, more in-depth game.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Capt Snuggler

[Superfluous J]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Please no more resource types until we get procedural tanks that automatically change paint jobs based on their contents and size.

It's ridiculous that every new resource needs to come with its own bevy of tanks in all sorts of sizes, which either aren't numerous enough to be effective or are in far too many varieties to be manageable. Or both.

As inanely, ridiculously apparent as @Capt Snuggler thinks Life Support is, I think it's just as apparent that ever since we stopped only needing LFO tanks, things should have gone procedural.

[Capt Snuggler]

8 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Please no more resource types until we get procedural tanks that automatically change paint jobs based on their contents and size.

It's ridiculous that every new resource needs to come with its own bevy of tanks in all sorts of sizes, which either aren't numerous enough to be effective or are in far too many varieties to be manageable. Or both.

As inanely, ridiculously apparent as @Capt Snuggler thinks Life Support is, I think it's just as apparent that ever since we stopped only needing LFO tanks, things should have gone procedural.

I understand and agree with this, but this is and argument for better resource management and tools, not fewer resources.

 

more game, not less.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Capt Snuggler

[Superfluous J]

24 minutes ago, Capt Snuggler said:

this is and argument for better resource management and tools, not fewer resource

It's an argument for better resource management tools before more resources. Life Support requires more resources unless Kerbals are going to eat rocket fuel, so I think it is a bad thing to develop right now. Not "not great" or "could be better." It's BAD. It will just add more cruft.

Incidentally, I've never installed a Life Support mod I liked. Some I liked better than others, and some I tolerated longer, but all of them got the boot eventually. I'm not even sure I'd use a stock Life Support system.

Granted, I never really liked FAR or RemoteTech yet think Squad nailed the stock versions of those mods, and even though it adds another resource type I like the stock ISRU system better than I liked the various mod options. So there's hope yet, I suppose.

[Capt Snuggler]

If the current mission planning tools and resource container system is not up to task, then they need to be upgraded and refined to make it work.

This is something that has always bothered me about the development of KSP. so many opportunities for deeply interesting gameplay mechanics have been passed up because existing systems/tools/mechanics/artwork were not adequate.

Again, this should be an argument for MOAR GAME not less.

[Kerbinchaser]

Yes, life support would be nice, but don't you like the fact that you can launch a rocket and just leave it in space forever without your crew dying? I mean, what the heck to Kerbals breathe? It's like they breathe air FOREVER. 

[Tyko]

4 hours ago, Capt Snuggler said:

If the current mission planning tools and resource container system is not up to task, then they need to be upgraded and refined to make it work.

This is something that has always bothered me about the development of KSP. so many opportunities for deeply interesting gameplay mechanics have been passed up because existing systems/tools/mechanics/artwork were not adequate.

Again, this should be an argument for MOAR GAME not less.

Procedural Parts now includes a procedural USI-LS tank that can be switched between Supplies, Fertilizer or a couple of combination tanks. It's really made packing LS resources a lot easier.

[KSK]

5 hours ago, Lo Var Lachland said:

Yes, life support would be nice, but don't you like the fact that you can launch a rocket and just leave it in space forever without your crew dying? I mean, what the heck to Kerbals breathe? It's like they breathe air FOREVER. 

Confession time. My name is KSK and I've never landed a kerbal on another planet.

I've sent plenty of probes to other planets but no crewed ships. And that's mostly because I don't like the fact that you can launch a rocket and just leave it in space forever without your crew dying? Likewise, I don't like the way I can stuff Jeb into a Mk1 capsule and send him to Eeloo. So I don't. Unfortunately my grandiose plans for doing 'proper' crewed missions with 'proper' sized spacecraft never really get off the drawing board for a variety of reasons.

I don't think life support needs to be complicated and I'm pretty sure Squad could make a good stock implementation in the same way that CommNet is a pretty good implementation of a RemoteTech / AntennaRange type system. Any crew cabin could include a certain number of days of life support with variably sized 'life support' modules being available to extend that number of days. For example, a Mk1 capsule might include three days worth of life support as standard, i.e enough for most Kerbin orbital flights or trips to the Mun. A Mk1-2 capsule might include twenty days worth, i.e enough for a trip to Minmus and back, even on a fairly inefficient transfer. For simplicity, assume that's 20 days per kerbal so all the player has to worry about is mission duration, rather than crew numbers.

Throw in a simple (and fairly small) 1.25m 'life support module' so that Mk1 capsules can be equipped for Minmus missions and I'm willing to bet that that's all a lot of players will ever see or need.

Things get a little more complicated for space stations and bases of course, but then again, none of the stock contracts for space stations or bases (that I'm aware of) require a crew as part of the contract, merely sufficient space for a crew. Hence, those added complications effectively become optional - only players that like running permanently crewed stations or bases will even notice them and again, I'm willing to bet that the kind of player that likes running permanently crewed space stations, probably won't be fazed by life support requirements. It does mean that orbiting labs get a bit of a nerf because you'll need to restock them every so often but I don't think I've ever seen any complaints about orbiting labs being underpowered, so again I suspect a nerf will not upset too many players.

Likewise, crewed interplanetary flights become a bit more challenging but given that they're basically end-game missions anyway, I don't see that as a bad thing. As noted in this thread and elsewhere, life support for crewed flights also balances CommNet requirements for uncrewed flights.

 

[Kerbinchaser]

Just now, KSK said:

Confession time. My name is KSK and I've never landed a kerbal on another planet.

I've sent plenty of probes to other planets but no crewed ships. And that's mostly because I don't like the fact that you can launch a rocket and just leave it in space forever without your crew dying? Likewise, I don't like the way I can stuff Jeb into a Mk1 capsule and send him to Eeloo. So I don't. Unfortunately my grandiose plans for doing 'proper' crewed missions with 'proper' sized spacecraft never really get off the drawing board for a variety of reasons.

I don't think life support needs to be complicated and I'm pretty sure Squad could make a good stock implementation in the same way that CommNet is a pretty good implementation of a RemoteTech / AntennaRange type system. Any crew cabin could include a certain number of days of life support with variably sized 'life support' modules being available to extend that number of days. For example, a Mk1 capsule might include three days worth of life support as standard, i.e enough for most Kerbin orbital flights or trips to the Mun. A Mk1-2 capsule might include twenty days worth, i.e enough for a trip to Minmus and back, even on a fairly inefficient transfer. For simplicity, assume that's 20 days per kerbal so all the player has to worry about is mission duration, rather than crew numbers.

Throw in a simple (and fairly small) 1.25m 'life support module' so that Mk1 capsules can be equipped for Minmus missions and I'm willing to bet that that's all a lot of players will ever see or need.

Things get a little more complicated for space stations and bases of course, but then again, none of the stock contracts for space stations or bases (that I'm aware of) require a crew as part of the contract, merely sufficient space for a crew. Hence, those added complications effectively become optional - only players that like running permanently crewed stations or bases will even notice them and again, I'm willing to bet that the kind of player that likes running permanently crewed space stations, probably won't be fazed by life support requirements. It does mean that orbiting labs get a bit of a nerf because you'll need to restock them every so often but I don't think I've ever seen any complaints about orbiting labs being underpowered, so again I suspect a nerf will not upset too many players.

Likewise, crewed interplanetary flights become a bit more challenging but given that they're basically end-game missions anyway, I don't see that as a bad thing. As noted in this thread and elsewhere, life support for crewed flights also balances CommNet requirements for uncrewed flights.

 

Same here. I've gotten to both the Mün and Minmus, but never set foot on Duna or Eve or Ike, or anything. I have sent a probe to Ike, but that's it. I also "kinda" hyper edited an Eve probe into orbit of the purple planet.

The only real life support I'd like to see would be stations and bases. I agree with you. For me, it's more exciting to equip a base or station with greenhouses, and oxygen containers, and sending shipments of water and food up to the crew. 

However, adding life support to a craft is just not worth it. You'd have to add a life support module, add the oxygen, add the supplies, so on, and so forth. 

Besides, it's quite fun playing around with the two moons of Kerbin that are within EASY reach for my space program. 

My conclusion is that Life support would be nice, but only for bases and stations.

Cheers, ~Lo

[Tyko]

@KSK & @Lo Var Lachland the system that KSK is suggesting is REALLY close to how USI-LS by @RoverDude handles it. I've been using it for many months and it does

• take into account crew space to determine how long the crew can stay on board.
• use a very simple Supplies resource to create a mass cost for your long term missions.

It's elegant, pretty easy to understand and gives a great visualization tool within the VAB so you can see how adding parts impacts survivability. Finally, in true Kerbal fashion, the penalty for failure (default) is simply that crew members without sufficient supplies / living space become tourists and refuse to perform any duties until their LS situation is fixed. So, there's no death penalty for messing up - you can change this and make the penalties more extreme if you want to.

 

[Arugela]

On 1/6/2017 at 0:01 PM, Capt Snuggler said:

simple fact is currently you can wack a Kerbal in to a single seat pod and send them off in to the cosmos. there is no penalty or requirements they don't even need power to stay alive.

its just silly. the games got it backwards. why are probes harder...????

Kerbals should require a minimum of Life Support (O2) and Heat (from electric charge)

all arguments to the contrary are invalid. srsly think about it.

I think you are forgetting, we have to first establish whether kerbals are animal, plant, or mineral.

[Capt Snuggler]

2 hours ago, Arugela said:

I think you are forgetting, we have to first establish whether kerbals are animal, plant, or mineral.

Snuggler forgets nothing! we have all heard this argument before. I'll leave you to look up the biology and organic chemistry.

#more game, not less!

[Arugela]

 

11 minutes ago, Capt Snuggler said:

Snuggler forgets nothing! we have all heard this argument before. I'll leave you to look up the biology and organic chemistry.

#more game, not less!

Jokes aside. You do realize games are defined by what you have to do in them. The more game means more items defining it. which is by definition restictions... That is the entirety of what a game is. So the more we figure out the more game we get!! 8d In fact the less game the simpler the mechanics and amount of things invovled. That is less game. So I am the one trying to get more game. 8)

So, MORE GAME!! ><

Edited January 14, 2017 by Arugela

[tseitsei89]

10 hours ago, Arugela said:

 

Jokes aside. You do realize games are defined by what you have to do in them. The more game means more items defining it. which is by definition restictions... That is the entirety of what a game is. So the more we figure out the more game we get!! 8d In fact the less game the simpler the mechanics and amount of things invovled. That is less game. So I am the one trying to get more game. 8)

So, MORE GAME!! ><

Simpler and easier mechanics dont mean better and/or more game. They mean simpler and easier game.

And to me challenge is what makes the game fun. So yeah MORE FUN GAME!!