Possible Solution to the Multiplayer Issue

[sevenperforce]

20 minutes ago, razark said:

Forgive me, but I really don't feel like looking back through the thread to find the original proposal.

I don't blame you.

20 minutes ago, razark said:

Was the idea that each SOI would have it's own timeline shared by the users within it, and they can only adjust where they are in space, and not time?

If so, what would control the position of planets?  I'm guessing that would be covered by the timeline of the sun's SOI?

Yes, that's essentially the idea.

The same problem arises for the positions of moons, too, so it's not so simple. Rather, the positions of bodies relative to their SOIs would not be shared at all. The only thing shared is the rotation of the central body and the locations of manmade craft. 

Each player is essentially playing their own game. Each player has his or her own set of on-rails planet positions, etc., that does not change, and you can timewarp to "fast-forward" the locations of all the on-rails bodies in the game. However, whenever your craft has a closed orbit with respect to its SOI (that is, it completes at least one orbit without crossing any SOI boundaries), it can see and interact with any other ships controlled by other players that also have closed orbits in the same SOI.

If you have a closed orbit, you can "position warp" to another location along your closed orbit, without fastforwarding time at all.

Since player-to-player interactions only occur when two players have closed orbits in the same SOI, every player is free to timewarp independently. This means that players would not necessarily see moons and planets at the same relative locations, but that's not a problem because if you both need to visit the same destination, you can both do separate transfer burns and arrive separately, timewarping as needed, until you both have closed orbits in that destination SOI and can interact.

This allows virtually all player-to-player interactions you'd ever want, while preserving nearly-normal timewarp behavior without requiring any sort of "joint timewarp" agreements or workarounds. The only exception would be interplanetary intercepts; for example, if a one player was flying a cycler on a Kerbin swingby, a second player would not be able to directly rendezvous with it inside the Kerbin SOI. But those sorts of interactions are awfully rare, and players could work around this if the first player had a small probe in LKO.

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

Since player-to-player interactions only occur when...

 

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

This allows virtually all player-to-player interactions you'd ever want

Both cannot be true. Which one is false?

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, Spricigo said:

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Since player-to-player interactions only occur when..

This allows virtually all player-to-player interactions you'd ever want

Both cannot be true. Which one is false?

Well, you could always take a look at the very next sentence: "The only exception would be interplanetary intercepts."

As I explain, this system works (every player is free to timewarp independently) because only allows player-to-player interactions when both craft are in closed orbits in the same SOI. The only player-to-player interactions not allowed would be interplanetary intercepts. Also explained above.

And even there, you could have work-arounds. I explained up-thread that you'd need a collision rule for docking, because you don't want two people controlling the same craft at the same time. You'd need one person to give up active control; if two ships were docked in this fashion, the docked craft would be placed inside the universe of the person in active control, while the other person would only be passively watching. Swap control, and the craft switches back to the universe of the the other person. Undock (again, through some established system), and both players regain control of their vessels.

So the work-around for an interplanetary intercept: if Player A has a cycler and Player B is trying to rendezvous with it, then Player A would need a probe in LKO that Player B could dock with, passively, so that Player B's intercept ship would then be placed inside Player A's universe. Player A could then rendezvous with it normally. Or, perhaps, Player A could temporarily cede control of his cycler to Player B, so that it would pop up in Player B's universe and he could complete the rendezvous.

[Spricigo]

4 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Well, you could always take a look at the very next sentence

I read the whole post. Pointed contradictory statements.  Please clarify.

[sevenperforce]

8 hours ago, Spricigo said:

I read the whole post. Pointed contradictory statements.  Please clarify.

You're simply wrong.

What do you imagine is the contradiction in saying that the solution only allows player-to-player interactions on closed orbits within SOIs? That is what it allows. Since virtually all possible player-to-player interactions occur on closed orbits within SOIs, the solution is fine for 99% of multiplayer situations. Work-arounds could be found for the handful of exceptions.

[Kebab Kerman]

Disable warping and/or make it so that everyone warps when the host does, and only the host can do this? It seems like a good idea for me. Doesn't break the game too much, and it keeps people in sync.

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

You're simply wrong.

What do you imagine is the contradiction in saying that the solution only allows player-to-player interactions on closed orbits within SOIs? That is what it allows. Since virtually all possible player-to-player interactions occur on closed orbits within SOIs, the solution is fine for 99% of multiplayer situations. Work-arounds could be found for the handful of exceptions.

 

I still don't understand that halfpregnant concept.  You want us to discuss your idea but don't want to take in consideration opposition to the idea.

You say that those  situations only happen 1% of time.

That is enough for me not liking it. And should be enough to you recognize that your idea have an issue.

[sevenperforce]

46 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

I still don't understand that halfpregnant concept.  You want us to discuss your idea but don't want to take in consideration opposition to the idea.

You say that those  situations only happen 1% of time.

That is enough for me not liking it. And should be enough to you recognize that your idea have an issue.

Exactly. You don't understand it. That was my point before, but you insisted you did understand it.

You still have not explained how there was any contradiction in what I wrote. Probably because you cannot, since there is no contradiction.

There is only one kind of interaction that would be prevented by the timewarp system, and I explained why, and why it would be a very unlikely occurrence.

Your lack of desire to understand a very robust solution does not give my solution issues.

[Spricigo]

7 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Exactly. You don't understand it. That was my point before, but you insisted you did understand it.

Don't blame me for not understanding what you failed to explain. You dismissed any all all my concerns as "not important".

 

 

10 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

You still have not explained how there was any contradiction in what I wrote.

You first stated that player interaction will only happen under a limited set of condition. Then claimed that it allow for virtually unlimited player interaction.

 

 

If that is not contradictory enough:

20 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Each player is essentially playing their own game....

 

...

This allows virtually all player-to-player interactions you'd ever want,

My impression is that you assume that all we want is a glorified shared save.

 

[sevenperforce]

12 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

You first stated that player interaction will only happen under a limited set of condition. Then claimed that it allow for virtually unlimited player interaction.

If that is not contradictory enough:

Quote

Each player is essentially playing their own game....

 

...

This allows virtually all player-to-player interactions you'd ever want,

My impression is that you assume that all we want is a glorified shared save.

With respect to the relative locations of SOIs, each player has their own game timeline preserved, so that they can still warp to maneuvers, etc.

The vast majority of all player-to-player interactions occur when both craft are on closed orbits inside the same SOI. Thus, by limiting player-to-player interaction to those situations, we can allow virtually all player-to-player interactions you'd ever want, with only a handful of exceptions.

My point is that there is no real reason at all for players to share the locations of SOIs.

[Spricigo]

33 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

My point is that there is no real reason at all for players to share the locations of SOIs.

And mine is that there is no real reason at all for player to not share the locations of SoIs.

 

How do we solve that impasse? Seems that we need to agree to disagree.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Spricigo

[sevenperforce]

14 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

And mine is that there is no real reason at all for player to not share the locations of SoIs.

I'm unclear on why you feel this is necessary. What in gameplay is lost by not sharing SOI locations? 

[Spricigo]

34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I'm unclear on why you feel this is necessary. What in gameplay is lost by not sharing SOI locations? 

The impasse remains: What immersion is lost by sharing SoI locations?

 

Notice, that make evident the primordial divergence there. Your system is focused on gameplay (e.g. no one need to wait for others and if two people want to interact they just need to put themselves under the circumstance where it is allowed) however what I'm questioning is about the realism (e.g. two player can 'meet' and yet not be able to interact). Gameplay reasons will not address my (or anyone's else) concerns with realism.

I may accept that your idea don't consider breaking the immersion a problem, however I can't accept your claim that no one is concerned about it. In either case is not the solution for everyone.

Same when someone proposes "everyone warp at the same rate". I accept if he/she don't consider waiting for other player a problem, however I'll not accept someone claiming that no one will be annoyed for waiting.

[sevenperforce]

4 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

The impasse remains: What immersion is lost by sharing SoI locations?

Notice, that make evident the primordial divergence there. Your system is focused on gameplay (e.g. no one need to wait for others and if two people want to interact they just need to put themselves under the circumstance where it is allowed) however what I'm questioning is about the realism (e.g. two player can 'meet' and yet not be able to interact).

The only way two players can "meet" and be able to interact is if they rendezvous and match orbits. If they're in matching orbits, they can interact under my solution.

The only problem is that you cannot meaningfully plan a rendezvous with a vehicle on an escape trajectory through their SOI, but that is a very rare instance.

[Spricigo]

1 minute ago, sevenperforce said:

The only way two players can "meet" and be able to interact is if they rendezvous and match orbits.

To meet is to be in the same position in the same time, nothing more.  Matching trajectories is unnecessary.

BTW: You didn't answer my question. (again)

[sevenperforce]

25 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

To meet is to be in the same position in the same time, nothing more.  Matching trajectories is unnecessary.

BTW: You didn't answer my question. (again)

What exciting gameplay do you anticipate when passing suspiciously close to another player's vehicle with a relative velocity of 7 km/s?

You asked "What immersion is lost by sharing SoI locations?" Nothing is lost by sharing them, except for the ability to timewarp independently.

[Spricigo]

46 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

What exciting gameplay do you anticipate when passing suspiciously close to another player's vehicle with a relative velocity of 7 km/s?

Avoiding a collision, or making it happen.

If two kids are together in the sandbox, we should need to consider the possibility of they throwing sand at each other faces.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Spricigo
edit: should >need to

[sevenperforce]

46 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Avoiding a collision, or making it happen.

If two kids are together in the sandbox, we should need to consider the possibility of they throwing sand at each other faces.

Without mods, spacecraft traveling at high relative velocities will clip through each other without colliding. 

But yeah, that would be a fun part of multiplayer.

[Spricigo]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Without mods, spacecraft traveling at high relative velocities will clip through each other without colliding. 

IMHO a more important issue than how to control timewarp. Cross-posting from a different thread:

 

Quote

The intrinsic problem with the eternal discussion about "the timewarp issue" is that everyone get it wrong. Timewarp is not an issue, is a solution.

The issue is that the gameworld is, literally, astronomical huge. As result a 'short trip' take hours while a 'long trip' take decades, and the game is all about travelling to different places. But than we add the option to accelerate time and the problem is solved.

When we start to talk about multiplayer someone raise "the timewarp issue". Well, the multiplayer will have timewarp, problem solved. No one need to wait for years to do something.

 

And them we need to face the warpcontrol issue. That is an issue without a totally satisfactory solution.

Everyone agree to warp gives the power for a player to deny when others will warp.

Warp cause desynchronisation  gives the power for a player to deny the opportunity of others to interact with him.

I feel that people that defend any of this solution miss an important point: players may have conflicting goals, their intent may be to compete instead of cooperate. In that case we need to ensure that the warpcontrol rule don't give anyone an unfair edge.

Now, at that point most people either insist that their preferred rule is better or that neither can be applied. I think we need to get over it and realise that is better to have both system to chose between.

 

[sevenperforce]

14 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

IMHO a more important issue than how to control timewarp. Cross-posting from a different thread:

And them we need to face the warpcontrol issue. That is an issue without a totally satisfactory solution.

Everyone agree to warp gives the power for a player to deny when others will warp.

Warp cause desynchronisation  gives the power for a player to deny the opportunity of others to interact with him.

I feel that people that defend any of this solution miss an important point: players may have conflicting goals, their intent may be to compete instead of cooperate. In that case we need to ensure that the warpcontrol rule don't give anyone an unfair edge.

Well, don't players already have the power to deny other players from interacting with them? After all, unless you're completely out of dV, it's pretty darn easy to dodge another player's, erm, advances.

[Spricigo]

 

If you are doing something because there is someone else in your save you are already interacting.

But, yes there is a lot of space* to where you can flee from another player trying to catch you. But then you may have other vessels (stations, relays,..) that he can target.

In any case, those discussion usually get stuck in how timewarp will work, so all those other issues are forever waiting for consideration.

*pun attempted