KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Pthigrivi]

6 minutes ago, Fullmetal Analyst said:

it shouldnt be hard for them to prove me wrong, provided that im actually wrong at this

…

i really have no other explanation for adding this much dev time to a finished game - please share your theories if you have any

They did specifically say in the last release date projection that consoles would come after PC. They’re not being released at the same time. We’ve also seen quite a bit of development since 2019 that has nothing to do with consoles; new reactors, fuel factories, engines, improved terrain, scattering, clouds, etc. Most folks think the original release date probably wasn’t feasible, which may have had something to do with the studio change. So far it looks like Intercept is just putting in the time necessary to actually do justice and make the game that we saw in the trailer. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Most folks think the original release date probably wasn’t feasible,

Also including the people who got a chance to visit Star theory back then.

We ignored it because we desperately wanted the game to be released early but the biggest thing they cautioned against whas the fact that they didn't see a complete game ready to release in just a few months.

They all said that the Devs should take their times.\

<snip>

Edited September 16, 2022 by Geonovast
Removed content no longer relevant

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Fullmetal Analyst said:

however im 90% sure that this entire holdup is just because of console related stuff

KSP 2 has been delayed, must be the thing I hate about it. Is that your thought process?

[joratto]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Also including the people who got a chance to visit Star theory back then.

We ignored it because we desperately wanted the game to be released early but the biggest thing they cautioned against whas the fact that they didn't see a complete game ready to release in just a few months.

Which people? I'd like to read these accounts.

[Ahres]

5 minutes ago, joratto said:

Which people? I'd like to read these accounts.

There are different resources out there. Das Valdez, Scott Manley, EJ, etc. plus a couple modders like Galileo and I think LinuxGuruGamer, and then Snark from the forums all were invited to the studio. If I'm motivated enough I'll add some links. Das has a really long video on Twitch going through some game footage he was allowed to share. There's another video out there somewhere of the whole group in a restaurant afterward and they're talking about the game. Seems like there's a long twitter thread from another streamer.... Bottom line, it's out there.

[Deadmeat24]

48 minutes ago, Ahres said:

There are different resources out there. Das Valdez, Scott Manley, EJ, etc. plus a couple modders like Galileo and I think LinuxGuruGamer, and then Snark from the forums all were invited to the studio. If I'm motivated enough I'll add some links. Das has a really long video on Twitch going through some game footage he was allowed to share. There's another video out there somewhere of the whole group in a restaurant afterward and they're talking about the game. Seems like there's a long twitter thread from another streamer.... Bottom line, it's out there.

I really hope you are motivated enough to add links 

[Fullmetal Analyst]

12 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

They did specifically say in the last release date projection that consoles would come after PC. They’re not being released at the same time. We’ve also seen quite a bit of development since 2019 that has nothing to do with consoles; new reactors, fuel factories, engines, improved terrain, scattering, clouds, etc. Most folks think the original release date probably wasn’t feasible, which may have had something to do with the studio change. So far it looks like Intercept is just putting in the time necessary to actually do justice and make the game that we saw in the trailer. 

what u dont seem to understand is that the game needs changes in its core mechanics to work properly for console, not just a simple port like other games

honestly i think they should just make 2 slightly different versions for pc and console to not compromise pc gameplay just to fit it into a console

<snip>

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Geonovast
Removed content no longer relevant

[TheOrbitalMechanic]

8 hours ago, Fullmetal Analyst said:

what u dont seem to understand is that the game needs changes in its core mechanics to work properly for console, not just a simple port like other games

???
KSP 1 has a console edition that works fine (barring a few bugs). No changes in core mechanics necessary.

<snip>

Edited September 16, 2022 by Geonovast
Removed content no longer relevant

[Ahres]

3 hours ago, Deadmeat24 said:

I really hope you are motivated enough to add links 

Only for you, Deadmeat. And I better make sure @joratto sees this too. Here's what I've got:

This one talks about who came to the studio and has a picture of them:

Das' Footage: Highlight: KSP 2 Gameplay Footage - Twitch

Das' Footage Breakdown: KSP 2 Roundtable Recap - Gameplay Footage, Dev Interview, and AMA - Twitch

BadNewsBaron's Twitter Thread:

 

Here's a reference to the "after-party" dinner. It seems the video is no longer available?

 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Ahres
Added Joratto.

[Geonovast]

Another development thread about Multiplayer has been merged into the master KSP 2 Multiplayer thread.

Also, a great deal of content has been removed.  This is mostly due to a side argument being removed that was no longer relevant.

 

 

[Deadmeat24]

19 hours ago, Ahres said:

Only for you, Deadmeat. And I better make sure @joratto sees this too. Here's what I've got

Thank you very much! 

[Rutabaga22]

I have an idea as to how multiplayer could do timewarp, this may have been thought of already, but I will still bring it up. I call this method the "Catch up"
     

The whole idea is that one person can do a mission and timewarp through and stuff, but the other player sees the craft at whatever point it is along the mission. Then after the mission you go back to the oldest point in time a player is playing at.

For example, I have a dres mission, but the other player is flying a plane around.  The person may only see the take off and kerbin escape on the map screen, but I am already 2 months in the future doing a mid-course correction. Then, when I am done the mission I can return to the space center, but I go back 9 months to when the other player was flying the plane. Then, if I want to go back to the mission o pilot a rover or something it puts me back 9 months in the future.

I really hope this made sense lol

[mcwaffles2003]

On 9/15/2022 at 2:41 PM, Ahres said:

 

 

 

in the twitter thread

 

"

How many new systems: "Multiple."

"

Minimum 2 new systems for the people saying only 1 new system, first time I've seen this info.

[enderger]

I'd say integrating a singleplayer "simulation mode" for testing flights that you need to be able to revert should be implemented (presumably able to take place at any point in time) and a system for time warp voting (limited by the player whose status demands the lowest time warp setting, perhaps voting to warp a certain amount of time so that nothing interrupts it) would be the best feasible way to implement this. It avoids having to resolve paradoxes, allows for testing craft (and adding a bit of pressure to get the real flight right), handles the case of crafts in conditions where time warp is unsafe (possibly providing an option to prohibit new flights and prompt in-atmosphere players to land should the threshold be reached in order to avoid warping problems), and allows for people to execute their maneuvers in chronological order (a vote for n is also a vote for m if n >= m).

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, enderger said:

I'd say integrating a singleplayer "simulation mode" for testing flights that you need to be able to revert should be implemented (presumably able to take place at any point in time) and a system for time warp voting (limited by the player whose status demands the lowest time warp setting, perhaps voting to warp a certain amount of time so that nothing interrupts it) would be the best feasible way to implement this. It avoids having to resolve paradoxes, allows for testing craft (and adding a bit of pressure to get the real flight right), handles the case of crafts in conditions where time warp is unsafe (possibly providing an option to prohibit new flights and prompt in-atmosphere players to land should the threshold be reached in order to avoid warping problems), and allows for people to execute their maneuvers in chronological order (a vote for n is also a vote for m if n >= m).

When one player just wants to land a craft over the course of a few minutes and another needs to skip several years to encounter a planet, nothing works except giving all players the ability to timewarp at their own pace. The risk of "paradoxes" is completely overblown.

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, enderger said:

I'd say integrating a singleplayer "simulation mode" for testing flights that you need to be able to revert should be implemented (presumably able to take place at any point in time) and a system for time warp voting (limited by the player whose status demands the lowest time warp setting, perhaps voting to warp a certain amount of time so that nothing interrupts it) would be the best feasible way to implement this. It avoids having to resolve paradoxes, allows for testing craft (and adding a bit of pressure to get the real flight right), handles the case of crafts in conditions where time warp is unsafe (possibly providing an option to prohibit new flights and prompt in-atmosphere players to land should the threshold be reached in order to avoid warping problems), and allows for people to execute their maneuvers in chronological order (a vote for n is also a vote for m if n >= m).

Welcome to the forums! As you can see this is a big source of debate. We’re all hoping single player mounts up to a real progression mode that fleshes out many of the systems that were a little lackluster in KSP1, but also for a sandbox mode or two that enables free-design. We don’t know what the multiplayer solution will look like (see 47 pages of speculation), but I kind of agree with Bej that voting and simultaneous warp probably isn’t it because it becomes really clunky in practice. Much better would be something more akin to Luna Multiplayer where players have the freedom to do what they wish in their own time but can choose to sync or jump ahead of other players to interact. Paradoxes are a very real practical problem but so long as each vessel’s continuity is preserved and they remain greyed out until another player has ‘leapfrogged’ past the last edit/interaction we should be okay. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[razark]

I still don't get why people are attracted to calling playing in widely separated time "bubbles" where they can't interact with each other or have any affect beyond showing up on the map¹ is "multiplayer" rather than "multiple players with chat".

 

¹Unless they synch to the same time and actually go into multiplayer, of course.

[LHACK4142]

Just now, razark said:

I still don't get why people are attracted to calling playing in widely separated time "bubbles" where they can't interact with each other or have any affect beyond showing up on the map¹ is "multiplayer" rather than "multiple players with chat".

 

¹Unless they synch to the same time and actually go into multiplayer, of course.

It is a bit strange, but it's somehow different to be in a multiplayer world in a game even if you hardly interact with the other player. In our Minecraft world, my and my friend live over 1400 blocks apart and only meet 2-3 times a session, but it's just completely different.

[Ashandalar]

41 minutes ago, razark said:

I still don't get why people are attracted to calling playing in widely separated time "bubbles" where they can't interact with each other or have any affect beyond showing up on the map¹ is "multiplayer" rather than "multiple players with chat".

 

¹Unless they synch to the same time and actually go into multiplayer, of course.

Is it so difficult for you to come up with scenarios in which two (or more) players are contributing to the same space program goals, but might happen to fly different missions at some point to accomplish them? One simple example is that they're working on the same orbital colony, and just need two more resources, from different locations, to go interstellar.

As an analogy, I hosted a private Minecraft server for almost two years where each player had their own individual base and resources. The vast majority of the time, no two players were in render-distance of each other. Once every few hours or so, we would visit each others' bases and work on joint projects like linking up minecart tracks through the Nether, or killing the Ender Dragon. None of those players (including me) would have had any interest in playing separate single-player worlds while being on voice chat.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Ashandalar

[razark]

I go to a friend's house.  I'm at the kitchen table, playing poker.  My other friend John is hanging out in the garage where someone's dealing blackjack.

John wanders in, grabs a beer from my six pack, asks to borrow $5, and goes back to the garage.

 

Are we playing cards together?

[Pthigrivi]

13 minutes ago, razark said:

Are we playing cards together?

I don’t know that a KSP coop project would be very analogous to a card game. It’s probably more like a construction site where various subs may or may not be building components in their own shops or on site installing at the same or different times but everyone is still contributing and coordinating toward the same goal. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[razark]

18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

It’s probably more like a construction site where various subs may or may not be building components in their own shops or on site installing at the same or different times but everyone is still contributing and coordinating toward the same goal. 

Exactly.  Everyone is doing activities that contribute to the same goal, the building of whatever is going to exist on that site.

I'm questioning how Player A doing a Mun Colony supply run while five years later Player B is mining resources on Duna to build a station in the Jool system fits into "toward the same goal".  How is that playing together, when both players could be playing their own games and sharing videos on Youtube while chatting on Discord, without changing the dynamic of their activities?

 

  Edit:

18 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I don’t know that a KSP coop project would be very analogous to a card game.

Everyone is in the same environment, the house.  They're using the same tools, cards and some method of tracking value (chips/cash).  There's sharing of resources (beer/borrowed money).  Everyone's goal is presumably the same (to have fun and hopefully come out ahead).

But they're using those tools in very different environments, separate rooms.  They're using the tools with different sets of rules.  The gameplay and experience of each player is different, based on the rules they've chosen to follow.

Further, there's the assumption that the multiplayer KSP is a coop.  I have seen plenty of arguments about how KSP MP should work based on not forcing players into a coop mode.

Edited September 28, 2022 by razark

[Xelo]

47 minutes ago, razark said:

I'm questioning how Player A doing a Mun Colony supply run while five years later Player B is mining resources on Duna to build a station in the Jool system fits into "toward the same goal".  How is that playing together, when both players could be playing their own games and sharing videos on Youtube while chatting on Discord, without changing the dynamic of their activities?

Well isn't that under the assumption that you know how a hypothetical coop will play out between people (or even how coop will work in-game) ? Its not like single-player doesn't exist, if you want a single-player experience.. you just do that. You don't press the hypothetical co-op button with the express intent of playing a singleplayer experience ...  You seem to frame coop as if individual progression was the only thing people in a coop server ever cared about, like if it was Id be more then happy with AI competition in that case, but its probably not. I recall Nate saying that the team raced vehicles around when testing procedural wings, and to me that's really fun! but only in the context of there being others to race with? Racing vehicles doesn't contribute to progression at all but it surely would be something you can imagine doing together in coop? And sure people can be doing their separate things, but you can still ask them to help you out on specific tasks, otherwise you really have to ask yourself why you are playing with these specific people in the first place. Or in other words why is it when you invited your friend over to your place, he went off and hid in the garage to play blackjack rather then to play poker with you?
The thing about those minecraft servers with separated players that may be applicable here is really just the notion that your world is inhabited by others, they can come and visit you and check stuff out at their own leisure and interact with you directly in game, and vice versa. Its like if the game was generating cool and functional structures as the game progressed or something. Basically having suburban neighbors, as opposed to living in a home out in the woods and calling people on the phone.
As for the supply run, its definitely possible* player A saved player B the effort of having to do a mun supply run later on. Player A may not have contributed to the immediate goal of Jool station building, (though again Player B can simply just ask nicely), but they did take a future task off player B's mind and contributed to progression as a whole.

* (Not sure how coop causality works here with time warp, we just have to wait and see.)

[Guest]

5 hours ago, razark said:

I go to a friend's house.  I'm at the kitchen table, playing poker.  My other friend John is hanging out in the garage where someone's dealing blackjack.

John wanders in, grabs a beer from my six pack, asks to borrow $5, and goes back to the garage.

 

Are we playing cards together?

Apollo-Soyouz, the shuttle on the MIR, the ISS, ASI LiciaCube on NASA DART, the Lunar gateway, the NASA-ESA mars sample return plans.

All missions that, to be played multiplayer without asynchronous time warp would require a single playing player and the rest waiting for their turn.

[Stephensan]

12 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Apollo-Soyouz, the shuttle on the MIR, the ISS, ASI LiciaCube on NASA DART, the Lunar gateway, the NASA-ESA mars sample return plans.

All missions that, to be played multiplayer without asynchronous time warp would require a single playing player and the rest waiting for their turn.

tbs ksp 2... sounds like a fever dream