KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Vl3d]

17 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

If multiplayer worked that way I'd likely avoid it entirely. 

Sounds like you're describing the actual future of space exploration and exploitation. But again, there are ways to mitigate the very low chance of overcrowding and implement exclusivity. Like, for example, the first come - first served principle. It's a competitive universe out there.

[Bej Kerman]

9 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I just think the word MMO just has a bad reputation

No, KSP just isn't an MMO kind of game. You're asking for a game that isn't KSP. 

[t_v]

40 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Sounds like you're describing the actual future of space exploration and exploitation. But again, there are ways to mitigate the very low chance of overcrowding and implement exclusivity. Like, for example, the first come - first served principle. It's a competitive universe out there.

Well, I personally want it to not even come close to overcrowding. I would like to land on a planet and be sixty degrees away from the nearest colony, and ten from the nearest craft. I would like to look out from one of my colonies and maybe see one or two others right at the horizon. I would like to orbit a planet and never see another ship close enough to tell it is a ship. That may sound lonely to some, but to me it just makes it all the more beautiful when you do make contact, instead of constantly being in contact with a bunch of players and their old bases. And the universe devoid of life is beautiful too, at least to me. I think that KSP 2 multiplayer will preserve that sense of untouched wilderness with nobody nearby, which isn’t really possible if you can always find a base transporting materials on top of every mountain and by every shore. 

[Vl3d]

37 minutes ago, t_v said:

And the universe devoid of life is beautiful too, at least to me.

So do you think there should be cities on Kerbin?

[t_v]

I would not be opposed to them. Kerbin doesn’t have to be like the rest of the planets, it can be a lively and bustling place. But my preference is actually that Kerbin doesn’t have tricky to land places like cities; in the beginning, I wouldn’t expect people to land in precise locations. A space program in the middle of a planet wide plain might not be realistic, but it’s beginner friendly. This applies to other stuff too- make trees sparse like in a savannah, so that a plane can reasonably land between them. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by t_v

[DwightLee]

16 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

No, KSP just isn't an MMO kind of game. You're asking for a game that isn't KSP. 

Correct. I suspect multiplayer will be an oddity, a side thing you can do with a friend or two, but probably not the main point of your playing KSP 2

[Bej Kerman]

12 hours ago, DwightLee said:

On 4/20/2022 at 3:53 PM, Bej Kerman said:

No, KSP just isn't an MMO kind of game. You're asking for a game that isn't KSP. 

Correct. I suspect multiplayer will be an oddity, a side thing you can do with a friend or two, but probably not the main point of your playing KSP 2

I mean, yeah. Vl3d posted a concept image of a rocket going off, a pod parachuting down and a plane flying by at the same time like an MMO is going to achieve that at all. That's not going to happen in KSP 2 regardless of how multiplayer is done. If timewarp stays, then not many people will be synced. If timewarp is done away with, no-one will want to play just for how long it'll take to do anything at all.

[DunaManiac]

4 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

If timewarp stays, then not many people will be synced. If timewarp is done away with, no-one will want to play just for how long it'll take to do anything at all.

Pretty much my position. The only way that I could see a bubble being viable is only inside the atmosphere, where you can't timewarp anyway, and removing phys-warp is acceptable. The only problem is, you can't timewarp on the launchpad with that system, and if you do you're out of sync with everyone else until you encounter a vessel and sync to its time. So you end up with pretty much everyone being out of sync because of autowarp on the launchpad, and timewarp in orbit, defeating the purpose of the planetary time bubbles, and basically making it irrelevant. Vessel time bubbles are the only thing that is viable, but the visual shift would be noticeable.

Edited April 21, 2022 by DunaManiac

[Pthigrivi]

People are going to want to be synched, but I actually think thats just for a select few activities: mainly flying planes and driving rovers around. Like it be funny to set up a course by planting flags and then each player designs a rover to do a rally-run on Duna. All you'd need is to start at a shared base, both players roll their rovers out of the same VAB, drive up to the start line, and synch. Other players could be in the same server in their own timeframe building stations or setting up supply runs as they pleased. Even if you're doing something like a race to the moon and back its okay if your in-game clocks slide back and forth as you leapfrog each other. Just like with a lot of other games there are different ideas about what a speed run really means, and players can decide on their own if it means first one there in-game or first one there live as you trash-talk each other. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

but I actually think thats just for a select few activities: mainly flying planes and driving rovers around.

May I encourage you to expand that list?

 

[Deadmeat24]

On 4/20/2022 at 3:40 AM, Vl3d said:

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.

At that point you are just playing a coop server with extra steps. If people can only interact with say 10 people, why spend the resources to run one giant server with thousands? Just let them host smaller servers with their friends, or even public servers. You would get the same experience with less hassle. 

[Fletch4]

On 8/20/2019 at 6:35 PM, Geschosskopf said:

But this is a done deal--I can't stop it.  I accept it because I know there's nothing constant except change.  Still, I must hoist a flagon to all the great experimenters who pushed KSP to and beyond its limits, and all the Kerbals who sacrificed themselves in the pursuit of arcane knowledge.  We'll never see their like again.

even in stuff like dark multiplayer currently, it will still work with mods, just craft will not be saved. you just don't load in mods that aren't downloaded, similar to how Minecraft does texture/block packs.

[Pthigrivi]

On 4/22/2022 at 2:18 AM, Vl3d said:

May I encourage you to expand that list?

Sorry I missed this. I think your list is great! This isn't my kind of thing personally, I like going stupid with overly elaborate vessels and mission profiles, making big pretty bases, blah blah. For me the fun in multiplayer would be coop and seeing all the loony things my friends can build. But I think a lot of other players could go wild. 

[Vl3d]

... so what if interstellar travel was a project so difficult that in multiplayer it could only be done by a collaboration of multiple space agencies?

[t_v]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

... so what if interstellar travel was a project so difficult that in multiplayer it could only be done by a collaboration of multiple space agencies?

I’m reasonably certain that there won’t be a rebalance of the game between single and multi player, so an interstellar project would be the same regardless of which game mode (singleplayer/multiplayer) you are playing. However, I definitely think that agencies will interact and collaborate often in some servers, because if a player has a big stockpile of resources you need for a project, then that could invite cooperation in exchange for shared resources. 

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, t_v said:

I’m reasonably certain that there won’t be a rebalance of the game between single and multi player, so an interstellar project would be the same regardless of which game mode (singleplayer/multiplayer) you are playing

It's another mystery we know nothing about...

I feel like there should be things in multiplayer that cannot be done solo, like some giant construction or interstellar travel projects or difficult colonization or comet redirect. They would be the new type of raid bosses.

I'm telling you guys, KSP2 will revolutionize the MMO genre.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

1 hour ago, t_v said:

I’m reasonably certain that there won’t be a rebalance of the game between single and multi player, so an interstellar project would be the same regardless of which game mode (singleplayer/multiplayer) you are playing

It's another mystery we know nothing about...

No, we can make a reasonable guess that you won't have to chain resources from multiple agencies in order to go interstellar.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I feel like there should be things in multiplayer that cannot be done solo

Why? To cut people out of content for no reason at all? There's no reason for it and, at least for me, it would be the fastest way to a guaranteed refund. That kind of crap shouldn't be a thing in any game.

 

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I'm telling you guys, KSP2 will revolutionize the MMO genre.

MMO implies "Massive" with orbital mechanics there's no way to gain the kind of audience to make even a dent in the MMO genre.

Anything more difficult to fly or pilot than a GTA San Andreas plane is not going to gather a "massive" amount of player no matter how well written your tutorials are.

[Vl3d]

Massive for me is a few thousand players inhabiting the same persistent world, or at least 800 player servers. Quality over quantity.

[橙子emm]

Multiplayer for ksp2 can be played using the model of other niche games.

Players can build servers with official or privately provided servers, either for 4 players, 50 or more.

This is possible whether it is an MMO or playing with friends, and does not constrain the opening of single player games due to multiplayer

development.

Edited May 3, 2022 by 橙子emm

[Pthigrivi]

It's important to think about what experiences you're selecting for, and how to actually achieve 'quality over quantity'. If hundreds or thousands of players are all pooled into a single persistent space with minimal interaction, sure, you might see some cool stations or bases, but for every thoughtful thing you see there will be hundreds of spent stages and abandoned low-effort vessels. It's not as if all those casual players are going to be cleaning up after themselves, so it's basically just a giant floating junkyard. Same goes for the kinds of interactions you'd have with other players live. I would like to be able to talk or leave requests with 3 or a dozen of the folks that are actually involved, but I have no interest in getting constant notifications from hundreds of other people while Im playing. The game will need to have some kind of invite system. Whether it's here or integrated into the game there needs to be a way for small groups of players to make a private or public save and then invite people they know, or put it out there to the community for folks who want to join. In a lot of cases groups might want to make the save open to public view and let people request an invite if they liked what they saw,  but I'd personally have all of those outside requests muted while I was playing. In a lot of ways having teams of 4 or less is too small, and if the number was even 5 or 15 there's no reason to clutter up the space with a lot of minimally relevant junk and trivial interactions from anyone else.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

Well I think the Agency Interactions / Contracts / Trading page would be the main means of communicating with other players outside our agency. Filters of all kind would be mandatory, as seen during play testing. We could also have some kind of agencies alliance contracts for grand projects that require pooling designs and resources and segments, with more than the regular 4 co-op players. There are a lot of interesting ideas that come up while exploring the possibilities.

[GGzz12321]

just like Minecraft and No man’s sky？

[blankets]

I'm excited to see how multiplayer is implemented. When I first heard it was happening, I thought it would be like a small server of <6 friends just messing around at the KSC or other colonies. Sounds fun for sure, but mostly contained and not granting full access to the entire play area of the game. Then I heard them talking about players trading resources on colonies, and it broadened my horizons. 

I don't agree that it will be an MMO, as I can't imagine that fitting KSP. Instead, I imagine an experience like Minecraft, where a chill group of 5-20ish people log on for an hour and make bases and cool projects, sometimes together and sometimes on their own. For example, you could try to have a massive community refueling station. Or have challenges, like the first person to fly into the sun or redirect an asteroid to hit the KSC. Servers could have rules like not leaving garbage all over the system, but that also brings in the idea of kicking/banning people and admins for servers.

KSP has always been a single player experience for me and I ultimately don't need it, but it has a lot of potential for this community. For instance, I love watching the RSS/RO/RP-1 community and if some of the more prominent members got together and recorded a playthrough, people would love it. This is all just speculation, though.

[Vl3d]

Spoiler

Microsoft Flight Simulator: differences between available multiplayer modes and possible interactions between players.

If you play with the data transfer option you are practically in multiplayer mode all the time, except that for each flight you can set certain limitations in this aspect.

You have the following options at your disposal:

    LIVE Players - shows only those players who have the same Air Traffic tab setting, the most authentic experience
    All Players - shows all players within a radius of approx. 200 km (these aren't crowded very much)
    OFF, group only - you will only see friends which you've invited to your group.

Generally, the presence of others around you is only cosmetic, it affects the climate and immersion because planes cannot collide with each other in any way. As soon as another player gets too close, his plane turns into a ghost and becomes transparent, and when you fly directly into it, the object disappears.

Sometimes you will be forced to do this when another player is, for example, blocking the runway. You can freely use the lane without fear and take off - no one will feel it in any way.

The presence of other players causes more traffic at airports and the impression that the game world is "alive". When a plane is away from you, all you see is flashing red and green lights in the distance.

You can optionally enable tag display over other planes to better see the position of other players and their nicknames.

I feel like we all should know how MSF implements the MMO flight aspects. I think they will be an inspiration for KSP2.

https://guides.gamepressure.com/microsoft-flight-simulator/guide.asp?ID=55610

And remember MFS has ~200k active players and 5600 concurrent players on average.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Vl3d