KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Bej Kerman]

7 hours ago, Vl3d said:

You're just asking for faster horses instead of flying cars.

You are asking for an MMO because it'd fulfil your (imo unrealistic) fantasy of playing side-by-side with Stratzenblitz and other youtubers you look up to, at least that's what I've gathered from some of your messages. Truth is that an MMO would feel more like a single player game with asterisks attached - everyone online is just a stranger. I'd rather play with 2 or 3 close friends than a bunch of strangers.

[Lord Aurelius]

I don't really care if KSP2 gets multiplayer or not personally, but if it does the only way I see it working without drastically changing what KSP is is to have it be locally hosted with drop in/drop out co-op where one player is the host who owns the save.

This would allow friends to fly together and help each other on complex missions which seems to be what most people think of for KSP multiplayer without needing to drastically change the game to support competitive play or add a bunch of overly complex server infrastructure.

[Truebadour]

15 hours ago, Lord Aurelius said:

I don't really care if KSP2 gets multiplayer or not personally, but if it does the only way I see it working without drastically changing what KSP is is to have it be locally hosted with drop in/drop out co-op where one player is the host who owns the save.

This would allow friends to fly together and help each other on complex missions which seems to be what most people think of for KSP multiplayer without needing to drastically change the game to support competitive play or add a bunch of overly complex server infrastructure.

Yeah, I'm imagining something like Snowrunner where you can open up your solo save for people to join you.

Now what I'd like is the possibility to "lock" some structures in place. I think I'll mostly play with friends, but if I feel like playing with random players, I'd want my bases and space stations to be protected from grief. Something along the lines of : can dock and transfer resources but cannot damage or change the orbital parameters.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Truebadour

[Deadmeat24]

I don't think an mmo format is feasible at all. Ksp is about happy accidents and happy accidents don't go over well with strangers. I think we will likely get something akin to space engineers with smaller servers, some private and some public. 

[Vl3d]

I've been looking closely at how massive multiplayer is implemented in other space games and I think I've found a solution to quell your overcrowding fears and also merge all players into a single persistent world.

All players could build and fly in the same universe if dynamic instancing was used for some celestial bodies (mainly in the Kerbollar system, on and close to Kerbin).

The further players explore, the fewer they are, so there's not really the problem of colonial overcrowding on planets and moons that are far away from Kerbin.

We would only see / interact with max N number of players on each world, but more advanced players would converge the farther away they travel.

And there would be a server rule that each instance always had enough room for new player colonies, while maintaining a healthy density and interesting older / bigger colonies.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

36 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I've been looking closely at how massive multiplayer is implemented in other space games and I think I've found a solution to quell your overcrowding fears and also merge all players into a single persistent world.

All players could build and fly in the same universe if dynamic instancing was used for some celestial bodies (mainly in the Kerbollar system, on and close to Kerbin).

The further players explore, the fewer they are, so there's not really the problem of colonial overcrowding on planets and moons that are far away from Kerbin.

We would only see / interact with max N number of players on each world, but more advanced players would converge the farther away they travel.

And there would be a server rule that each instance always had enough room for new player colonies, while maintaining a healthy density and interesting older / bigger colonies.

What Deadmeat said. An MMO isn't very KSP.

[BowlerHatGuy3]

I’ve reread the multiplayer forum for a bit and it’s funny seeing it slowly devolve into madness and insanity.

[TLTay]

Doesn't the steam page say co-op multiplayer?

[Vl3d]

4 hours ago, TLTay said:

Doesn't the steam page say co-op multiplayer?

Yes, online co-op. And if you click the tag you see a list of basically everything that allows multiplayer cooperation, including massively multiplayer games.

I just think the word MMO just has a bad reputation. No one ever said "MMORPG" or anything like that.

We're just basically debating if KSP2 is going to have persistent world, dedicated servers and how many players per instance.

I'm sure the game is going to play very similarly to KSP1, with us being able to control a Space Agency, craft and Kerbals, regardless of multiplayer size.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I just think the word MMO just has a bad reputation.

I played MMOs, I play MMOs and I will play them in the future.

Nope, it's not about reputation, it's about knowing what "Massive Multiplayer" means, the required logistics and the downsides of what it would mean for the single player.

Again, Intercept is not big enough as a studio to create and manage an MMO.

[Deadmeat24]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Yes, online co-op. And if you click the tag you see a list of basically everything that allows multiplayer cooperation, including massively multiplayer games.

I just think the word MMO just has a bad reputation. No one ever said "MMORPG" or anything like that.

We're just basically debating if KSP2 is going to have persistent world, dedicated servers and how many players per instance.

I'm sure the game is going to play very similarly to KSP1, with us being able to control a Space Agency, craft and Kerbals, regardless of multiplayer size.

It's an interesting idea but it just doesn't work with the core mechanics of ksp. If one of my friends who doesn't know what he is doing smashes into my space station, I will laugh. But if some random stranger smashes into my station on an MMO server when all I wanted to do was play with my friends, that's a game breaking issue for me. I'm not saying the idea of a spaceflight sim in an mmo style doesn't have any appeal, it just doesn't follow the spirit of what ksp is. As I have said before, ksp is about happy accidents, and happy accidents don't go over well with strangers. It has nothing to do with the reputation of mmos. 

[Vl3d]

39 minutes ago, Deadmeat24 said:

If one of my friends who doesn't know what he is doing smashes into my space station, I will laugh. But if some random stranger smashes into my station on an MMO server

My suggested solution was to remove physical interactions from all craft belonging to other agencies (make them pass-through). This way you can only crash with your friends + there are massive performance improvements (lack of collision meshes, rendering only stages as parts).

Exception: you could interact with other players docking ports after asking for and receiving permission.

There could be layers of permissions for inter-agency craft cooperation: to dock / land, permission to transfer fuel / resources, permission to engage RCS, permission to start engines, to transfer crew or come on board, permission for scientific activities, trade (resources and craft) etc.

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Intercept is not big enough as a studio to create and manage an MMO.

It depends on marketing and player base research. Private Division / T2 do not put caps on budgets from what I understand. I tend to think KSP2 is going to be a much bigger project than what we were led to believe.

No one can seriously argue that it took the whole extended team 4 years to reimplements + extend + improve the KSP1 gameplay with part and colony mods + tutorials + better Unity visuals.

There's some serious infrastructure and technical work going on behind the scenes about which we know nothing. I tend to think it's related to multiplayer.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[Vl3d]

But I am also willing to bring arguments to the table that dismantle my ideas. For example, I don't know if many of you saw this message from Mr. Paul Furio, the Senior Engineering Manager at Intercept.

"An update on Kerbal Space Program 2 and how we're enabling players to travel from planet A orbiting star B to planet C orbiting star D, continuously, without any loading screens, pauses, faked out transitions, "warp drives", or other trickery. We're simulating a multi-light-year spanning 3D volume at a sub-millimeter level of resolution, and enabling players to travel to any point in that space if they can build a ship capable of making the journey. Unprecedented in gaming."

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-furio_kerbal-space-program-2-episode-5-interstellar-activity-6920089169021014016-J_5I

Well if that's the case for multiplayer, it kind of cancels a lot of solutions for syncing to the local server controlled multiplayer real-time bubbles.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[Vl3d]

But also look at this interesting talk of Mr. Furio from 2011 about MMO games and how to improve massive social interactions in the same persistent world using cloud services, NoSql and P2P.

"A talk from the Login 2011 conference on how to build games that connect hundreds of thousands of players in the same experience, using NoSQL, OSS tools & tech, and good planning."

The dream is real!

Later edit:

Not mentioning any specific names that have not been formally made public in marketing material in order to respect privacy:

Intercept literally has a MMO economy expert in the software engineering team that worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game), casino-type multiplayer games.

"Computer game designer and developer specializing in online games. Extensive background in MMOG development, including AAA titles..."

Not to mention an ex-Roblox UI/UX designer.

And the team is using Redis and PostgreSQL for database backend.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

Some of it may come down to how different people play the game. Kerbal for me is a relaxing break after work or watching a game on sunday. Its like a creative, nerdy bonsai tree to slowly grow and add to. Having a few friends popping in and collaborating sounds great, but I don’t want 20 people there let alone hundreds or thousands. I don’t want to talk to them. I don’t want to be bombarded with docking requests. I don’t want to see thousands of vessels hurtling around and crashing and passing through each other like an orbital junkyard. Even if it wasn’t bogging down my computer Id just rather they weren’t there. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

So basically you would spend 99% of your time in Construction and Map view, probably in single player or intra-agency 4 player co-op. I'm sure that will be possible.

Question is: why are you so against other prayers having the possibility of experiencing a bigger social interaction in a persistent world where we can actually see in-game what we create (crafts and stations and colonies), even after months and years of playing?

Do you really have no interest in exploring and discovering what human creativity is capable of it we work together in the same universe?

[t_v]

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

where we can actually see in-game what we create (crafts and stations and colonies), even after months and years of playing?

This is applicable in any case. Do you mean where you can see what a lot of other people have created instead of where you can see what you and your friends have created over the years?

[Vl3d]

10 minutes ago, t_v said:

where you can see what a lot of other people have created

This. Seeing what the whole KSP community is capable of, not just me and my friends. I don't even have friends that play KSP. And I'm sick of single player + checking out YouTube and KerbalX. I want to see everything that's being built in-game. I want to arrive at a new star system and be amazed by what players that came before built.

That's why I also recommended that each agency should have it's own Museum / Showroom building that could be visited by other players.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[darthgently]

20 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And I'm sick of single player + checking out YouTube and KerbalX

With such strong feelings I'm surprised you haven't coded a competitor to KSP.  But that is assuming the general market wants what you want, which may well be true.  I'm not sure it is fair to consider it the KSP 2 team's duty to test that theory when it is important to you and not to them and doesn't appear to be a "must have" in the player community.  I think the KSP 2 team has done their homework and know what will address needs fairly well.  I honestly think you could more effectively focus your angst to 1) making a mod or 2) making your own game.

[Vl3d]

Bread crumbs indicate I might be right in the end in some aspects. We will see. I'm not really interested in any other game. This is THE game that was promised by KSP1.

[darthgently]

3 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Bread crumbs indicate I might be right in the end in some aspects. We will see. I'm not really interested in any other game. This is THE game that was promised by KSP1.

Was it?  I haven't seen that promise made by any one doing the work.  Personally I don't want digital diversions and distractions to be too diverting and too distracting.  I don't expect a game to be more social than my real life, for example, and if it starts to becomes so, alarm bells go off in the back of my head that something ain't right.  But what do I know?  I can't stand MMO or the "new escapism".  Let's just say I would not be a model Metaverse citizen

[MechBFP]

I am willing to be wrong but I have a feeling  that the multiplayer will be about as popular as the multiplayer was in XCOM2. 

[Pthigrivi]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

This. Seeing what the whole KSP community is capable of, not just me and my friends. I don't even have friends that play KSP. And I'm sick of single player + checking out YouTube and KerbalX. I want to see everything that's being built in-game. I want to arrive at a new star system and be amazed by what players that came before built.

That's why I also recommended that each agency should have it's own Museum / Showroom building that could be visited by other players.

I don’t discount that! You’re totally free to want the kind of experience you want and Im sure you’re not alone. I really like building stations and bases all over the Kerbol system on my own anyway and having a collective world where 3 or even 12 people are also doing that and working together or competing would put plenty up there to check out—probably half a dozen stations around Kerbin, dozens of colonies and outposts, pulling up to Duna and trading some Deuterium for LS before pressing on to Dres or Jool, several of us pooling resources together to make our first interstellar mission with Greg making airbreather landers and Clare making ISRU pods. It sounds wonderful! More than that sounds like a lot of distracting noise. But thats just me! Everyone has their own ideas about whats fun for them. 

[Vl3d]

It's down to play testing and implementation. But I really think we still don't appreciate how physically big the KSP universe actually is and how much room there is for everyone to play and build. Not to mention interstellar travel.

A light-year is ~9,460,700,000,000 km. That's 5.88 trillion miles. The planets and moons have enough surface area for hundreds of thousands of colonies. And you're worrying about more than 12 players.

What you're actually saying is that you don't want UI clutter in map view and invasive interactions in multiplayer. That's a whole different problem to solve.

Think about it this way: you're not against the internet existing as long as you can selectively access the online information. How absurd would it be for me to say: here, process this 100 TB of information right now. Similarly, that's not what I'm advocating when I say KSP should be a MMOG. I'm talking about accessibility and persistency of user generated data.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

36 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

What you're actually saying is that you don't want UI clutter in map view and invasive interactions in multiplayer. 

Thats part of it, but it's more than that. Sure space is huge, but the equatorial orbit of Kerbin at 80-100km isn't actually that big. When Im docking to a station I don't want to see dozens of other vessels and spent stages and other people's stations hurtling around. Id also strongly prefer that things like resource values and science hotspots were not evenly distributed on planets, meaning there would some locations that were better to land and mine than others, even producing relatively small optimum locations for this or that resource that encouraged precise landings and clever transport strategies. I don't want to pull up to a primo fueling location or unique surface feature on Minmus and find it incomprehensibly cluttered with hundreds of other player bases all clipped through each other. I certainly wouldn't want the game optimized to make planet surfaces deliberately generic and unvaried so everyone spreads out evenly. Again, this is just a personal preference. If multiplayer worked that way I'd likely avoid it entirely. 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Pthigrivi