Tex

Possible Solution to the Multiplayer Issue

143 posts in this topic

If time ever moves differently for any player, ever, then they might as well add a warp drive part, and be done with it.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't this cause many more significant issues, if one person is flying to another planet or moon the speed of that object must also be adjusted in order to account for the fact the vessel is moving faster, but when this is done then another player attempting some maneuver has to deal with those objects moving at faster rates and everything, basically when somebody is warping all other locations in the game cannot be used until that person has completed their maneuver. multiplayer would be pointless if only one person could actually do something at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Veeltch said:

Tbh, this thread is kinda pointless. The time warp in multiplayer was discussed extensively and this infinite-FTL-on-demand-but-not-really drive idea has got some issues.

......

Oooooor we can just keep discussing this dead horse of a concept until SQUAD runs out of money and/or employees because DLCs for an unfinished game, right?

Do I actually expect multiplayer to be implemented? Actually no, I do not. Or, at least, I doubt it will realistically happen, but the developers of the game are people that can make decisions, and when the time comes for them to say "lets do/not do this" then I would hope they would come to the forums to see solutions, because they'd have the exact same problems that have been discussed. Yes, discussion after a point is tedious, but new ideas crop up all the time. It is the discussion itself that is one of the most important parts of the development process, because ideas evolve and new problems come up and new solutions are found. I'm going to have to disagree with the negative aspects you mention, but of course I doubt that multiplayer will really be a thing that happens. This thread is just a random idea I had that I want to see opinions on.

 

3 hours ago, Captain_Rex33 said:

wouldn't this cause many more significant issues, if one person is flying to another planet or moon the speed of that object must also be adjusted in order to account for the fact the vessel is moving faster, but when this is done then another player attempting some maneuver has to deal with those objects moving at faster rates and everything, basically when somebody is warping all other locations in the game cannot be used until that person has completed their maneuver. multiplayer would be pointless if only one person could actually do something at a time.

I'm really sorry, but I had trouble understanding this... If you mean that the celestial bodies must move faster to accommodate the regular vessel warping, that sounds a lot like timewarping, and that's not what the idea of Non-Time Time-Warp suggests.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove time warp, but add star gates like part. In star gate every gate had address and was able to open connection to near by gates. In KSP it can work little different, we don't need gate address only gate trajectory. If you want to jump to Duna you have to first put your ship in trajectory that passes by two gates, one orbiting Kerbin and second orbiting Duna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IllyrianTheGreat said:

Remove time warp, but add star gates like part. In star gate every gate had address and was able to open connection to near by gates. In KSP it can work little different, we don't need gate address only gate trajectory. If you want to jump to Duna you have to first put your ship in trajectory that passes by two gates, one orbiting Kerbin and second orbiting Duna.

Sounds like playing with HyperEdit?

Maybe you meant escaping Kerbin with a trajectory that has a future encounter with Duna...do you know how many people have it hard just getting an actual duna intercept from LKO? A lot of players just fix this in interplanetary space to get the encounter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blaarkies said:

Sounds like playing with HyperEdit?

Maybe you meant escaping Kerbin with a trajectory that has a future encounter with Duna...do you know how many people have it hard just getting an actual duna intercept from LKO? A lot of players just fix this in interplanetary space to get the encounter

With star gates located near each planet you could have game mechanic allowing you to create waypoint (node) with trajectory that passes both gates. This way intercepting planets could be much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Kerbital said:

Which basically means instant travel. How would that make any sense? Some games just do not lend themselves to multiplayer and KSP is one of them. Just accept it.

Quoted for truth. The fact is there are too many things that make multiplayer a practicle implausibility. Yes DMP is a thing I know. But here is a bit of a list of why its a bad idea:

1. Trolls. All types. 

2. Part counts

3. Mods/mod compatibility

4. Time warp

5. Not all machines (computers in this case) are equal which makes point 2 a BIG issue.

i could go on but its all been said from both camps. 

The bottom line is KSP is awesome as a single player game but not suited at all for mp. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlamoVampire said:

Quoted for truth. The fact is there are too many things that make multiplayer a practicle implausibility. Yes DMP is a thing I know. But here is a bit of a list of why its a bad idea:

1. Trolls. All types. 

2. Part counts

3. Mods/mod compatibility

4. Time warp

5. Not all machines (computers in this case) are equal which makes point 2 a BIG issue.

i could go on but its all been said from both camps. 

The bottom line is KSP is awesome as a single player game but not suited at all for mp. 

1. Reputation assigned to account (steam account)
2. Distributed data processing
3. Stock only
4. Remove it
5. look 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it just be simpler to add a hyper-edit feature that also did rough calculation of how much dV would have been needed to do the burn, moves your ship to it's new location and deducts the estimated amount of propellant?  Still has problems of course, but at least it might be a little more in keeping with the game's single player sprit.  Actually I've thought a mod to do this would be useful upon occasion (assuming there isn't one already).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tex is trying to reinvent the wheel. The problem with DMP was never its time sync (that works fine) it was what happened when two physics bubbles collided and desync. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tex said:

Do I actually expect multiplayer to be implemented? Actually no, I do not. Or, at least, I doubt it will realistically happen, but the developers of the game are people that can make decisions, and when the time comes for them to say "lets do/not do this" then I would hope they would come to the forums to see solutions, because they'd have the exact same problems that have been discussed. Yes, discussion after a point is tedious, but new ideas crop up all the time. It is the discussion itself that is one of the most important parts of the development process, because ideas evolve and new problems come up and new solutions are found. I'm going to have to disagree with the negative aspects you mention, but of course I doubt that multiplayer will really be a thing that happens. This thread is just a random idea I had that I want to see opinions on.

 

I'm really sorry, but I had trouble understanding this... If you mean that the celestial bodies must move faster to accommodate the regular vessel warping, that sounds a lot like timewarping, and that's not what the idea of Non-Time Time-Warp suggests.

 

so then this idea is trash, launching ships at thousands of kilometers per second would quite simply ruin the game. like completely ruin the entire point of the game. If you want completely terrible spaceflight mechanics go play some random sci-fi garbage game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Captain_Rex33 said:

so then this idea is trash, launching ships at thousands of kilometers per second would quite simply ruin the game. like completely ruin the entire point of the game. If you want completely terrible spaceflight mechanics go play some random sci-fi garbage game.

I know you're new here, but maybe try to phrase your critiques in such a way that you don't sound like a giant jerk. 

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you take orbital mechanics out of KSP in favor of magic drives you'd also have to replace the engines with magic engines, the fuel with magic fuel. In fact many parts would be unnecessary. Also, the whole navigation and maneuver node system is thrown out. These are key elements that make KSP the game it is.

Take that all away and you're not really playing KSP anymore. You're playing a game set in a magical version of space that allows you to design your own magical spacecraft. Cool. There are a lot of games like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Captain_Rex33 said:

so then this idea is trash, launching ships at thousands of kilometers per second would quite simply ruin the game. like completely ruin the entire point of the game. If you want completely terrible spaceflight mechanics go play some random sci-fi garbage game.

Ah, but the point was not to completely replace the mechanics of how KSP works. Of course I want to retain how the game functions. This idea affects one thing, and one thing only- Players in a multiplayer setting being able to interact with each other AND not have to wait ludicrously long amounts of time in order to do fun stuff like interplanetary missions. Perhaps something didn't make sense..?

 

18 minutes ago, Tyko said:

if you take orbital mechanics out of KSP in favor of magic drives you'd also have to replace the engines with magic engines, the fuel with magic fuel. In fact many parts would be unnecessary. Also, the whole navigation and maneuver node system is thrown out. These are key elements that make KSP the game it is.

Take that all away and you're not really playing KSP anymore. You're playing a game set in a magical version of space that allows you to design your own magical spacecraft. Cool. There are a lot of games like that. 

Again, I'm confused as to how this idea somehow "removes orbital mechanics" from the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tex said:

Again, I'm confused as to how this idea somehow "removes orbital mechanics" from the game. 

That's a bit of a legitimate point, IMO. If you travel the same trajectory when warping but at a different speed, you've changed the orbital mech to...something different from the mostly accurate orbital mech we have now. Not to mention that the planet won't be there when you arrive unless it speeds up too, so those mechanics change as well. If you speed up everything then you might as well just accelerate time rather than change speeds.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, IllyrianTheGreat said:

1. Reputation assigned to account (steam account)
2. Distributed data processing
3. Stock only
4. Remove it
5. look 2

1. And for non steam users? - not a solution.

2. Not sure how that would work, lack of programming knowledge.

3. Well that just about removes a huge player base portion. Take me as an example. I wont use the stock attempt at fairings. I wont fly without mechjeb. Not to mention my other needed mods. What about visual enhancers? 

4. So... Limit the game to LKO or use magic? Not an option.

5. See my original 2/5

fact is KSP =\= multiplayer. Just not suited.

Edited by AlamoVampire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyko said:

if you take orbital mechanics out of KSP in favor of magic drives you'd also have to replace the engines with magic engines, the fuel with magic fuel. In fact many parts would be unnecessary. Also, the whole navigation and maneuver node system is thrown out. These are key elements that make KSP the game it is.

Take that all away and you're not really playing KSP anymore. You're playing a game set in a magical version of space that allows you to design your own magical spacecraft. Cool. There are a lot of games like that. 

Removes orbital mechanic?

I tried the "magic engine" stuff by having a tiny probe core, and a vector, plus some infinite fuel.

The Jool encounter didn't happen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I like the idea of how DarkMultiPlayer works.

Each player is in their own time bubble and also then another player can spectate another player.

BTW DarkMultiPlayer is a multiplayer mod for ksp

Edited by Shadow Wolf56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IllyrianTheGreat said:

1. Reputation assigned to account (steam account)
2. Distributed data processing
3. Stock only
4. Remove it
5. look 2

Reputation is meaningless. Trolls are one of the reasons I stopped playing Elite Dangerous. I'm just not a fan of multiplayer at all because of idiots. I used to be, in the early days of the net.

Some douchebags managed to put Shinrata Dehzra in lockdown. This was a protected system and base only accessible to Elite players and Kickstarter backers. Too many immature idiots out there these days. Some people will labor on their reputation only so they can wreck havoc for few hours or days.

20 minutes ago, Shadow Wolf56 said:

I like the idea of how DarkMultiPlayer works.

Each player is in their own time bubble and also then another player can spectate another player.

BTW DarkMultiPlayer is a multiplayer mod for ksp

That does not sound to me like multiplayer at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every idea has drawbacks. The only real way I can see warp working in multiplayer is with a warp poll. When a player wants to warp, they can toggle warp on. Only when every player has toggled warp, will the warp "drive" engage. It would be pretty much like regular ops in any control center, real or fiction. "All stations reporting go; the board is green! Punch it!" The game server could have a Universal KAC / Warp Controller that will kill warp at the first alarm by any player. The drawback I see with this is waiting for someone/everyone to do their launch/landing/docking/maneuver/etc. A workaround for some of that could be heavy automation: you set the maneuver node how you want it, and that's how it happens as you warp on through it. And of course, there's always spectating as someone makes that daring landing on Tylo, or laughing at someone's feeble docking attempt. Or going to the bathroom/kitchen etc. When others are spectating and would otherwise be in warp, the active player could control warp as needed.

People working in the editors generally won't care if warp goes by unless they have a transfer window coming, but that would certainly add a "hurry up" element to the game. Now that I think about it, people could just use ships and .crafts they pre-built and not waste valuable MP mucking around in the editor.

Hope that rambling made sense, as I was having a sudden brainstorm...

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just don't timewarp. It will add a while new layer of realism to the game.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

That's a bit of a legitimate point, IMO. If you travel the same trajectory when warping but at a different speed, you've changed the orbital mech to...something different from the mostly accurate orbital mech we have now. Not to mention that the planet won't be there when you arrive unless it speeds up too, so those mechanics change as well. If you speed up everything then you might as well just accelerate time rather than change speeds.

I refer you to my wormhole example:

On 4/18/2017 at 11:10 PM, Tex said:

I do realize the cheaty-ness that insta-warping would cause from a realistic standpoint, but I would disagree that Non-Time Time-Warping would negate the concept of orbital mechanics in the game. They would very much still be there, it's essentially using wormholes (not really, but a comparable example) to get from one point to another faster than would normally be possible. If an object were to pass through a wormhole, physics wouldn't simply cease to act on that object forever, it would continue to act on one side of the wormhole as the other. It's the wormhole part that Non-Time Time-Warping can be thought of.

In that sense, I don't see how it actually changes the orbital mechanics. In using the Portal franchise as an example again, GLADoS mentions that momentum is conserved between portals ("speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out"). Elaborate?

 

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Just don't timewarp. It will add a while new layer of realism to the game.

I do agree, but as discussed before, the game would become immensely boring as a spaceflight simulator. I do indeed think it would make things nice and tidy, but unfortunately not many people just want to go to LKO or fly about the atmosphere (admittedly, the atmosphere is where I spend most of my time these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tex said:

In that sense, I don't see how it actually changes the orbital mechanics.

So if you are in a transMunar orbit, and you start at the periapsis then it should take you +-3 days to reach Ap, right? But when you warp you orbital parameters/angular speed around the planet, you induce phantom gravity on your ship only.

If you doubled your speed (with the special warping), then how is it possible that your trajectory curves twice as fast? (orbit lines are still in the same place, but you are moving faster through them). By doubling gravity for that warp period you get a similar trajectory based on the velocity (for arguments sake, ignore the square inverse fall-off). This seems like overthinking it, but when the result is not explainable with realistic orbital mechanics...it is no longer realistic orbital mechanics.

Try this though experiment:
From LKO, burn to get a minimum encounter with Mun. See the trajectory lines in map view, going behind Mun with a Pe of 100km, and getting a gravity assist all the way to a transMinmus orbit. Those lines seem static, a perfect representation of the "future".
Now (still at Kerbin Pe), special warp 2x. While you are moving faster, the Mun is still moving at 1x and thus every second that you are warping, you gaining on the Mun, lowering you Pe without any fuel usage.
Imagine how the post Mun encounter trajectory changes (the transMinmus orbit trajectory). Lower Mun Pe means stronger slingshot, means going way past Minmus, even escaping Kerbin SOI.

How can we use this special warp while expecting an encounter/intercept/rendezvous? If we activate this warp, it will literally warp our future trajectories if they are dependent on a second gravity source. That's all fine, we can learn to get used to it for the sake of multiplayer...or can we? That would mean ignoring launch windows all together. Don't launch to where Duna will be in 5 Kerbin months, but launch to where it will be in 5 minutes, since that is how much IRL time it might take to get there, and if we get this wrong then there is no more warping that will help us...we will have to wait it out until we enter Duna SOI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Blaarkies said:

So if you are in a transMunar orbit, and you start at the periapsis then it should take you +-3 days to reach Ap, right? But when you warp you orbital parameters/angular speed around the planet, you induce phantom gravity on your ship only.

If you doubled your speed (with the special warping), then how is it possible that your trajectory curves twice as fast? (orbit lines are still in the same place, but you are moving faster through them). By doubling gravity for that warp period you get a similar trajectory based on the velocity (for arguments sake, ignore the square inverse fall-off). This seems like overthinking it, but when the result is not explainable with realistic orbital mechanics...it is no longer realistic orbital mechanics.

Try this though experiment:
From LKO, burn to get a minimum encounter with Mun. See the trajectory lines in map view, going behind Mun with a Pe of 100km, and getting a gravity assist all the way to a transMinmus orbit. Those lines seem static, a perfect representation of the "future".
Now (still at Kerbin Pe), special warp 2x. While you are moving faster, the Mun is still moving at 1x and thus every second that you are warping, you gaining on the Mun, lowering you Pe without any fuel usage.
Imagine how the post Mun encounter trajectory changes (the transMinmus orbit trajectory). Lower Mun Pe means stronger slingshot, means going way past Minmus, even escaping Kerbin SOI.

How can we use this special warp while expecting an encounter/intercept/rendezvous? If we activate this warp, it will literally warp our future trajectories if they are dependent on a second gravity source. That's all fine, we can learn to get used to it for the sake of multiplayer...or can we? That would mean ignoring launch windows all together. Don't launch to where Duna will be in 5 Kerbin months, but launch to where it will be in 5 minutes, since that is how much IRL time it might take to get there, and if we get this wrong then there is no more warping that will help us...we will have to wait it out until we enter Duna SOI

I'm starting to understand the confusion here, thank you very much for this response.

What I'm proposing has shifted somewhat from its less fleshed-out version that popped into my head, where I quickly wrote it down. What I'm talking about here, what I've come to see as the most reasonable conclusion, comes once again to my wormhole comparison. This Non-Time Time-Warp would not affect orbital mechanics in any way, because the vessel, during the warp, would not be affected in any undue form as a result of the warp.

As a counter-example, say you have a trans-Munar injection, such as what @Blaarkies said. Instead of aiming this trajectory to get an intercept with where the Mun will be at the same time as the vessel in however many days it takes to get to the Mun, you would need to instead aim the trajectory of the orbit to where the Mun is currently positioned. Yes, it is less realistic, but the reason for this is when you engage this warp. All it does, in essence, is make the ship icon (from the map view) move along the exact same orbital path, but twice as fast or more, depending on how much warp is used. Could it be used to technically break the speed of light if warped fast enough? Well, yes. However, the important thing here is that no orbit is being changed. It's like speeding up time, putting the vessel in fast-motion, but the time flow of the game itself stays the same. When you stop warping, the vessel is then in a different position, in that same orbit, but only a few seconds or so have passed in real time.

It is not a realistic solution, of course not. It wasn't meant to be. All that Non-Time Time-Warp is is a solution that A) Allows two players in the same hypothetical game server to interact because there are no time desynchronization, and B) Still provides a way that Munar landing missions and interplanetary trips can be completed. It does mean that it would make the game less realistic, yes. But it is a possible solution to the problems associated with current multiplayer models. That is all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Tex said:

I'm starting to understand the confusion here, thank you very much for this response.

What I'm proposing has shifted somewhat from its less fleshed-out version that popped into my head, where I quickly wrote it down. What I'm talking about here, what I've come to see as the most reasonable conclusion, comes once again to my wormhole comparison. This Non-Time Time-Warp would not affect orbital mechanics in any way, because the vessel, during the warp, would not be affected in any undue form as a result of the warp.

As a counter-example, say you have a trans-Munar injection, such as what @Blaarkies said. Instead of aiming this trajectory to get an intercept with where the Mun will be at the same time as the vessel in however many days it takes to get to the Mun, you would need to instead aim the trajectory of the orbit to where the Mun is currently positioned. Yes, it is less realistic, but the reason for this is when you engage this warp. All it does, in essence, is make the ship icon (from the map view) move along the exact same orbital path, but twice as fast or more, depending on how much warp is used. Could it be used to technically break the speed of light if warped fast enough? Well, yes. However, the important thing here is that no orbit is being changed. It's like speeding up time, putting the vessel in fast-motion, but the time flow of the game itself stays the same. When you stop warping, the vessel is then in a different position, in that same orbit, but only a few seconds or so have passed in real time.

It is not a realistic solution, of course not. It wasn't meant to be. All that Non-Time Time-Warp is is a solution that A) Allows two players in the same hypothetical game server to interact because there are no time desynchronization, and B) Still provides a way that Munar landing missions and interplanetary trips can be completed. It does mean that it would make the game less realistic, yes. But it is a possible solution to the problems associated with current multiplayer models. That is all.

But that isn't space travel.  That isn't how space travel works.  You don't aim for where the object is now, you aim for where it is going to be when you get there.

KSP is meant to teach how space travel works, not how Stargates, Warp Drives, and Mass Relays work.  If you start changing that, it's a complete and total work of fiction.  It simply corrupts the core of what KSP is.  If you want magic space travel, Elite Dangerous is a great game.  You might also check out the Strike Suit series, and Evachron Mercenary.

Edited by Alshain
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now