T42592

Personally, back in days as a SCI engineer, collaboration came with a cost, both in coordination, planning, and design. Albeit, not entirely relevant to a game, KSP is nonetheless, a pure sandbox- void of technical specifications, engineering parameters, quality controls. Having stated that, I cannot fully appreciate how MP will be advantageous without solid sandbox rules (construction, build, maintenance, recovery). At best, KSP MP is, or will ultimately be, a novelty.

Aside from separate server suggestion, "IF" devs incorporate MP, fleshing out MP would be a monumental step requiring a robust infrastructure on the backend. While I see the devs developing the code, to fully implement the MP aspect, a third-party would be ideal that is well versed in bringing MP loads and frontend frames per second (fps) to end-users at reasonable rates. If the global community is segmented by region, or country, MP is possible. Otherwise, if the entire global community is in one node, disaster will follow. MP, if it is to be included, must begin designing, developing, and testing user loads now- not later. As for the granular aspect of MP: 1. Co-pilots 2. Passengers 3. Last Save Last Respawn 4. Death Respawn Penalty As for roles, building, flight, maintenance, are fairly straightforward. In the KSP2 world, unless these roles are coded as OPTIONAL, MP is a glorified tourist.

Without context of what MP would entail, it's conjecture as to 'what' MP would bring to the program. I'd like some feedback from the devs as to what this would look like before I dismiss MP.

Second Life tackled MP with free roaming coupled with no interaction coupling. For example, KSP2: K1 is original user/team/group. K2 is visiting user/team/group. --- K1 erects a structure. K2 actions no effect on K1 objects. K2 requests join. K1 grants K2 add-on (AO) / no-change (NC) permissions. K2 augments structure. --- Problem solved.