KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Gargamel]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

I don't care about being right. I care about the Game That Was Promised, the game KSP1 was supposed to be: a persistent world team-based and competitive big multiplayer game.

Please stop posting misleading assumptions based on incorrect or incomplete sources and data.    This only leads to confusion and arguments.

[darthgently]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

2 or 3 people, building a ISS replica together, same inclined orbit of the IRL ISS.

No MMO, no player being on Laythe flying a floatplane while the other is building a Duna colony. But 2 players building togeter the ISS.

That's all you need to start seeing problems if you don't have a system that allows for time warp.

I thought the thing warp problem was solved.   

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Considering that colored kerbal teams are actually in the announcement trailer, I would say yes, it's been confirmed by the devs.

I think its very easy to read too much into things and over-extrapolate, especially when hopes are as high as they are for this game. One could also look at the current KSC with 4 launchpads and 4 landing zones and say “See! Multiplayer will only support a maximum of 4 players!”, but of course there may be alternate launch sites we haven’t seen or a different way launches and time-synch are handled or any number of explanations that aren’t immediately obvious because we don’t have all the information yet. And who knows! Maybe later today we’ll get a big multiplayer dev video explaining everything, or maybe its another 2 weeks till the release date and 2 months before the next dev video and then we only really get the big multiplayer explanation in February. Things will play out and one way or another we’ll have more information before the game is released next year. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I thought the thing warp problem was solved.   

I was merely pointing out that voting for time warp, or any similar "solution" is not a solution at all.

Let's not confuse what it's likely happening in the studio with the speculation going on in this thread.

We know they had working multiplayer prototypes years ago from interviews, at this point, barring a complete rewrite of that system too, they most likely already decided for a system, whatever that may be.

 

[t_v]

4 hours ago, Rudolf Meier said:

But... here's my idea what I think could work. Use Multiplayer only for short periods of time during flights. One player is the "Master" and he controls the game, while others are just joining the game during flights and controlling Kerbals assigned to them. This would allow you to do EVAs in Multiplayer mode while the game itself is not real Multiplayer... maybe just "Multiviewer". ... or, maybe you can move the "Master" role from one player to another. This idea would also work inside the VAB for example. But in this case everyone will be in the VAB at the same time. So... Multiplayer would be some sort of Singleplayer but controlled by multiple computers.

That’s an interesting idea! I don’t think multiplayer should be limited to that, but I think it is a good option to have. I came up with a system that did this and I think I called it “players control kerbals” or something. I’ll link it below. 

Let me know if it creates the same type of interaction that you are hoping for. The big thing to note there is that the system isn’t limited to only sharing craft and buildings, you can also have your own thing going, if you want that. 

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

3 hours ago, Rudolf Meier said:

Really? ... so, why don't we first talk about the definition of "Multiplayer" then?

Not going to start an argument over semantics.

To make a comparable example it's like when they put a single specifically designed VR mission into a flat game and they call it a "VR Game". Technically it is, true, but is that really what you want when you buy a new VR game? A game that's 95% flat and then has a separate VR mode with a single dedicated 15 minutes "experience"?

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

That's not even considerable Multiplayer

I really dislike how you are disagreeing with the ideas that don’t fit into your view of KSP multiplayer. You just claim they aren’t multiplayer. The thing is that everyone has different ideas of what they would like, and most people recognize that while they might not like another system, it is still multiplayer. Being constantly de-synced from other players appeals to me about as little as constantly hopping between interactive and non-interactive modes, but I can recognize that they are still multiplayer. 

Here’s a few of the ways that KSP can be multiplayer. Don’t mind that they are bad, because bad systems can in fact exist (and I don’t want a repeat of the mod discussion), just look at all of the options:

- Playing through the game individually and seeing things other players have built. This one is pretty common, as it is a part of the gameplay of the subspace bubble model, the MMO model, and a few others. This is akin to MMO style gameplay where, outside of parties, you get the multiplayer experience mostly through seeing how big the player base is. 
 

- Building trade networks and infrastructure together. This is also a part of many proposed systems (including turn-based btw), and is closer to the kind of multiplayer I personally want in KSP. 
 

- Doing “short” activities together. These can be hours long, but on a star system’s time scale, are short. The turn-based system prioritizes this type of interaction, although lots of other systems allow and facilitate it to varying extents. This is also something I want, and why the solution I have never requires massive synchronizations. 
 

- Interacting on the same ship or colony together. I’ll add here since you say this isn’t the “KSP gameplay loop” that people are still playing through the game fully, they are just doing it together. Just because someone is in the driver’s seat in an FPS doesn’t mean they aren’t participating in the gameplay. There are plenty of games where multiplayer divides the responsibilities a single player would have between multiple people, and I personally think it could work well. It can also be integrated into other systems, although none have explicitly mentioned it. 
 

- Playing the game in turns and either watching other players or doing something between turns. I’ll start by saying I don’t like this idea. But for many people, that is what they are looking for, and I think I could see a way it could work. Between turns you can manage your colonies, build your ships, and check up on everything across the game, and when your transfer window is up, you can focus on flying because you have done the rest in the between time. The turn based system heavily prioritizes this, but other systems technically allow for it, except for mine, in which time is meaningless. 
 

There are definitely more ways to play multiplayer, and there are certainly good and bad ones, from a gameplay perspective. But that good and bad are mostly subjective, and saying that the ones you think are bad aren’t multiplayer is just a way out of considering them as possibilities. 

[Laxez]

Another alternative could be to make a time warp only on the path and not on the position of the planets, a sort of "speed warp", but the planets remain in the same place.

 

So anyone can travel fast without worrying about what would happen if I revert to VAB after an hour of play. Imagine if the other players had to go back an hour just because someone missed a Tylo landing or something else.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, t_v said:

I really dislike how you are disagreeing with the ideas that don’t fit into your view of KSP multiplayer. You just claim they aren’t multiplayer. The thing is that everyone has different ideas of what they would like, and most people recognize that while they might not like another system, it is still multiplayer.

We all see the difference between KSP2 having multiplayer and KSP2 being a live service like Overwatch or WOW.

 

What I'm pointing out is a similar and just as important difference, the difference between a game that allows you to play the full game with friends and a game that has a separate multiplayer mode with only limited content.

 

Imagine Factorio or Minecraft, but the "visiting" players can't build things. Or Stellaris multiplayer only allowing for one player controlled empire, or a FPS game with a multiplayer mode and a separate campaign that you can only play in single player.

It's still multiplayer, a game with some multiplayer functionality (or, in the case of the FPS, a multiplayer game with some single player functionality), but not a multiplayer game.

 

Not a deal-breaker for me, far from it, but a thing is a game that allows me and my friends to start a save together and just play the game, a completely different one is a game that just allows them to come visit what I'm doing in my game or has a tool to make just a single mission in co-op while remaining in the same physics bubble to tutor a new player.

 

I'll try to call the first type "full multiplayer" instead of calling the second "not [complete] multiplayer" given that it seems to bother people.

 

That explained, I'd like the game to have full multiplayer.

 

 

PS it's worth pointing out that any system allowing for full time warp control for every player doesn't implicitly remove the ability to play in sync and do short activities together or tutor a new player. You can just stay in sync and play like that.

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I don't care about being right. I care about the Game That Was Promised, the game KSP1 was supposed to be: a persistent world team-based and competitive big multiplayer game.

Please stop posting misleading assumptions based on incorrect or incomplete sources and data.    This only leads to confusion and arguments.

It's not my fault the devs don't offer answers and classifications. Other players interpretations are not better than mine, so please don't even try to censure my opinions.

Besides, it was a metaphorical Song of Ice and Fire reference.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Vl3d

[Deadmeat24]

6 hours ago, Vl3d said:

50 pages of discussions and people still can't accept that you can just let the server control the common time speed limit for multiplayer and if you want to warp on-rails you automatically go into single player (or on-board team) mode.

So you just admitted what I said, your mmo system is essentially single player with extra steps.

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, Deadmeat24 said:

So you just admitted what I said, your mmo system is essentially single player with extra steps.

No. It's persistent world multiplayer with multiple ways to interact with players.

 

[Deadmeat24]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

No. It's persistent world multiplayer with multiple ways to interact with players.

 

Given how much time I spend warping to maneuvers and transfer windows and such, I think I would spend a lot of time in singleplayer if the game went into single player every time I time warped. Additional problem, would that mean you had to load every single vessel around the body you are orbiting after every time you time warp? I can't imagine that is lower end pc friendly. 

[t_v]

52 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Other players interpretations are not better than mine, so please don't even try to censure my opinions.

Other players’ interpretations are not stated like “The Game That Was Promised.” Speculate away, don’t make assertions though. 

[determinationmaster]

I'm not sure if this has been said yet (because I don't feel like reading through FIFTY PAGES of arguments and discourse), but I think there should be exactly 3 game modes, no more, no less:

1. Singleplayer. This is self-explanatory. The game functions as KSP 1 normally does, plus all the amazing new features of KSP 2. Time warping works as normal, there is only one space program. Although it might not be easy to do, making the singleplayer mode able to transition to multiplayer, similar to the "open to LAN" option in Minecraft, would be a great quality of life feature, so you could show your friends all the cool bases and ships you built in your singleplayer world. Along with this, you should be able to upload your game to the steam workshop or some built-in game sharing place. 

2. Co-Op. Now here's where things get interesting.  In Co-Op mode, you and some number of other players would be in charge of a space program. You would all have the same kind of control (colony management, controlling & building ships, doing stuff around the space center, etc.). However, to prevent griefing (I too wish it did not exist, but here we are), if you launch a ship, YOU OWN IT. That means that other players cannot dock with or board your ship without your permission. I'm thinking a chat system where there is a "board/dock" request when you want to do something with someone else's ship. This could also make for a cool interstellar-like sequence if there is some way to board a ship without permission. I have no idea how time warp will be solved, but you guys seem to have a pretty good idea of how it will be done so please elaborate.

3. Space Race. In this mode, each player (or group of players) plays as a different space program. There might also be a menu in the beginning where you choose your space program (either mirrors of real world programs or completely made up "Kerbal lore") that has different strengths and weaknesses, such as starting funds, research speeds, and global views and press coverage of your home Kountry. There could either be a set goal such as "make it to the Mün and back" or a game with a points system based on different achievements. As for the question of weapons, I think it's a bad idea to have usable weapons in the game, because it would force the ksp team to increase the age rating of the game. However, i can see there being some kind of "scary boom stockpile" that you will never use but can be built up to force the other team to slow down research and funding due to fear.

These are just some of my ideas, could everyone tell me what you think might be a better method?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

a persistent world team-based and competitive big multiplayer game.

That was never promised.

...   ...   ...

Now - I will admit something.  The Nate himself, a few weeks back, admitted that he and the team were "racing rovers."

While they could have been doing time trials... the idea of 'racing' usually involves two or more competitors and a track.

So - for me - this is the biggest evidence that MP is still a thing in KSP2.

What kind of thing?

 

[shrug emoji]

[determinationmaster]

4 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

[shrug emoji]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Pthigrivi]

3 hours ago, t_v said:

Being constantly de-synced from other players appeals to me about as little as constantly hopping between interactive and non-interactive modes, but I can recognize that they are still multiplayer. 

One note about this because I see folks express this perception a lot: separation in time and separation in space are the same thing. I don't mean that in the Einstein, special relativity way, I mean this in a very practical sense. If Im working on a station in low Kerbin orbit and at the same time you're flying a lander on Minmus, those vessels are in every practical sense 8 days apart because thats how long it would take for one to travel to the other. Now, I may happen to have a base on Minmus where I could launch a vessel and go land where you landed on Minmus, but we're still separated not just by space, but also by time. In this way there isn't really much practical difference between being de-synched on the calendar and just working on different projects on different worlds. There's also no real reason I have to be focused on a station I own to watch you dock to it. If you're trying to dock a supply ship to a larger freighter a friend owns to trade resources you don't even want that player to be actively flying or changing course because its going to make the rendezvous a huge hassle. In fact there's really only a very small set of activities in which you would want to be synched at all--rover races and dogfighting. Now, rover races could be fun, I have no real interest in dogfighting but if folks want to thats fine. My guess is that neither is going to make up the vast majority of time, so synching is actually kind of a niche activity rather than something you need or even want to enforce across gameplay. All the rest of the time it doesn't really matter "when" players are any more than it matters "where" they are. And allowing that doesn't prevent synching for a  Munar Rally race if you want to. We're not looking for a paradigm that's tailored to any one specific type of play, but one that allows for the greatest possible modes. 


Now, since we've found 50 different ways to beat this horse, let me ask a question that I haven't so far seen brought up:

Do people want to be able to work together on a shared tech tree? Or do you have no interest and you only want to work on tech advancement individually? Could you imagine you and a couple of friends spreading out--one player sends probes to Eve, a couple others build a base on Duna, another sets up infrastructure in the Kerbin system, and you all pool together to tech up to build an interstellar vessel?

Edited October 14, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Deadmeat24]

4 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Do people want to be able to work together on a shared tech tree? Or do you have no interest and you only want to work on tech advancement individually? Could you imagine you and a couple of friends spreading out--one player sends probes to Eve, a couple others build a base on Duna, another sets up infrastructure in the Kerbin system, and you all pool together to tech up to build an interstellar vessel?

Both TBH, I'm the most experienced KSP player out of my friend group, so I would rather work WITH them to help them figure everything out and get good at KSP. However, there are some friends of mine that have some KSP experience, and I would love to have a competitive "space race" with them as I am quite competitive. 

[determinationmaster]

9 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Do people want to be able to work together on a shared tech tree? Or do you have no interest and you only want to work on tech advancement individually? Could you imagine you and a couple of friends spreading out--one player sends probes to Eve, a couple others build a base on Duna, another sets up infrastructure in the Kerbin system, and you all pool together to tech up to build an interstellar vessel?

if everyone is in the same space program, then yeah i think it would be best if everyone has the same tech tree, unless it's possible to unlock tech nodes on other planets by building a research center there, and it will take a long time for that research to be transferred back to kerbin.

[Ashandalar]

13 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Now, since we've found 50 different ways to beat this horse, let me ask a question that I haven't so far seen brought up:

Do people want to be able to work together on a shared tech tree? Or do you have no interest and you only want to work on tech advancement individually? Could you imagine you and a couple of friends spreading out--one player sends probes to Eve, a couple others build a base on Duna, another sets up infrastructure in the Kerbin system, and you all pool together to tech up to build an interstellar vessel?

Ideally, I'd like both to be possible (via mods if not via server/game settings), but if I had to choose exactly one, the shared tech tree is how I'd prefer to play most of the time. A couple of my friends haven't played KSP before, and would probably not give the game a chance if the game isn't playable in co-op with "full-multiplayer", as Master39 describes it.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Ashandalar

[Nazalassa]

17 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

KSP Git

... not sure of it.

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

One note about this because I see folks express this perception a lot: separation in time and separation in space are the same thing. I don't mean that in the Einstein, special relativity way, I mean this in a very practical sense. If Im working on a station in low Kerbin orbit and at the same time you're flying a lander on Minmus, those vessels are in every practical sense 8 days apart because thats how long it would take for one to travel to the other. Now, I may happen to have a base on Minmus where I could launch a vessel and go land where you landed on Minmus, but we're still separated not just by space, but also by time. In this way there isn't really much practical difference between being de-synched on the calendar and just working on different projects on different worlds. There's also no real reason I have to be focused on a station I own to watch you dock to it. If you're trying to dock a supply ship to a larger freighter a friend owns to trade resources you don't even want that player to be actively flying or changing course because its going to make the rendezvous a huge hassle. In fact there's really only a very small set of activities in which you would want to be synched at all--rover races and dogfighting. Now, rover races could be fun, I have no real interest in dogfighting but if folks want to thats fine. My guess is that neither is going to make up the vast majority of time, so synching is actually kind of a niche activity rather than something you need or even want to enforce across gameplay. All the rest of the time it doesn't really matter "when" players are any more than it matters "where" they are. And allowing that doesn't prevent synching for a  Munar Rally race if you want to. We're not looking for a paradigm that's tailored to any one specific type of play, but one that allows for the greatest possible modes

Definitely agree on the point that’s good systems allow for many types of interaction, which is why I semi consistently talked about which modes allowed or catered to which types of interaction, I just forgot to tie it into a cohesive conclusion. We can agree to disagree on the “niche” quality of syncing, I’m sure that you recognize as much as I do how many people (including me) have said that the main activity that they will do in multiplayer requires synchronizing. The point is that synchronization needs to not be annoying to do. 

The second thing is that while temporal separation is similar to spatial separation, why have two forms of separation instead of one? Going back to the minmus base example, if the players were only separated by space, they would see each other doing their activities even if they couldn’t reach each other, whereas if they were also separated by time, one player might not even see that the other is active in the area. Given that several systems only have multiplayer as visual interaction, and that even the subspace bubble solution goes to some lengths to give the appearance of other players doing things, even if it is just a recording, you probably also know that seeing other players doing their things is an important part of the experience. So, why would you choose to watch a recording that you can’t interact with, when you could watch real-time actions that you can’t interact with? Also remember that once you close the spatial gap, you then have to take the extra step of closing the time gap, which I would prefer not doing if it means all my craft in transit overshoot their destinations. I personally would be stuck always looking at recordings of players, even when we are driving around on the same square kilometer. 

[shdwlrd]

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Do people want to be able to work together on a shared tech tree? Or do you have no interest and you only want to work on tech advancement individually? Could you imagine you and a couple of friends spreading out--one player sends probes to Eve, a couple others build a base on Duna, another sets up infrastructure in the Kerbin system, and you all pool together to tech up to build an interstellar vessel?

I'll throw my $0.02 in even though I don't personally don't know anyone that is willing to play KSP. 

I would rather have the choice for the tech tree. The play style would really depend of the players involved. And no, I don't see anyone I would play with going off on their own. They will get very bored if there isn't a true end goal or some type of competition. If there isn't, they will start trolling the other players.

[Pthigrivi]

15 minutes ago, t_v said:

I’m sure that you recognize as much as I do how many people (including me) have said that the main activity that they will do in multiplayer requires synchronizing.

What are those activities? Besides rover racing Im hard pressed to come up with many? 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

What are those activities? Besides rover racing Im hard pressed to come up with many? 

That's the thing, innit? 

I think joining for a rover race somewhere would be fun.  But the completely absurd way I use warp when trying to get a landing or intercept for a docking would not lend itself to me playing with others for anything other than that. 

Also:

 

4 hours ago, shdwlrd said:

they will start trolling the other players

The biggest risk of online interaction.

If KSP2's KSC is destructible... Players will 'accidentally' destroy others' bases because they can.   The nightmare of reporting and tickets and trolling will be unfun for the team / individual playing multiplayer with randos. 

Much easier to police in some form of peer-to-peer coop where the player can allow people in or ban them at will. 

This kind of system would let those who want to play with friends not have all their work destroyed by some randomer.  (still have to select 'friends' wisely). 

[Rutabaga22]

11 hours ago, Vl3d said:

. I care about the Game That Was Promised, the game KSP1 was supposed to be: a persistent world team-based and competitive big multiplayer game.

Do you really think KSP1 was supposed to be an MMO?