KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Bej Kerman]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

8 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

5 players is a decent amount

No it's not. Come on, all of us together - so we can see the crazy contraptions launching and zipping around in real-time instead of only on the forum, Reddit, YouTube or KerbalX. Come on, jump on board!

That's simply an unrealistic dream.

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, Pthigrivi said:

we wouldn't want to be automatically lumped into a giant server with thousands of spent stages and abandoned half-considered bases scattered around. 

It's OK, the planets are big enough! That's what KSP is known for, right? Huge planets.

[Bej Kerman]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

7 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

we wouldn't want to be automatically lumped into a giant server with thousands of spent stages and abandoned half-considered bases scattered around. 

It's OK, the planets are big enough! That's what KSP is known for, right? Huge planets.

No, they've got a point. It doesn't matter if you've got 5 or 500 players, you're only going to be in close quarters with players you've arranged to meet. You might as well just run a local MP game rather than go through a massive server for virtually the same effect.

[Pthigrivi]

5 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

It's OK, the planets are big enough! That's what KSP is known for, right? Huge planets.

I mean they are, but ideally resources are not going to be evenly distributed. You're going to have a few relatively small places with rich deposits that everyone will tend to cram around, and because you don't want the server to automatically delete things most of it is just going to be abandoned half-hearted starts by casual players who might not even play the game anymore. Maybe thats not a big deal on Gurdamma, but with thousands of players over time you're going to have hundreds of bases glommed around the best spots on Minmus, and 80-100k up around equatorial orbit is going to be a floating trash heap. There could be 5-10 thousand spent stages and abandoned half-built stations in that area alone. Even if they aren't collision hazards I don't really want to have that stuff all floating around while Im trying to dock. Id much rather play with a handful of people who are really interesting in making something cool. 

[darthgently]

This is half baked and off the cuff, but maybe in MP each player would have their own resource distribution on each body.  This would spread bases out a bit.  And maybe prevent the occasional war 

[Vl3d]

1 minute ago, darthgently said:

maybe prevent the occasional war 

You can't really war with anyone because player craft and buildings would have to be pass through (or indestructible for colonies) unless you are working with / against that players agency. Requests to land / dock etc.

[Vl3d]

13 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

There could be 5-10 thousand spent stages and abandoned half-built stations in that area alone.

The game simulates a multi-light year universe with sub-millimeter precision and you're worried about some rinky-dink contraptions floating around Kerbin?  Most of them would be hidden in your map view and they're pass through anyway. The important thing is that you can play with anyone at any time using the stuff you guys have already spent hundreds of hours building.

And why shouldn't Kessler Syndrome be a thing in KSP?

[darthgently]

28 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

You can't really war with anyone because player craft and buildings would have to be pass through (or indestructible for colonies) unless you are working with / against that players agency. Requests to land / dock etc.

Should have indicated I was joking as most real wars occur over resources.  Sorry for any confusion

[mcwaffles2003]

1 hour ago, MARL_Mk1 said:

Old news. 

True, but there is new news!

Nate talked a bit about a new system called agencies and how they could be conducted cooperatively or competitively in a space race fashion. He also mentioned agencies will be in several locations on kerbin. Now I'm wondering where will they be? Will they all be along the equator? Will they all be at about sea level?

[Pthigrivi]

6 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

The game simulates a multi-light year universe with sub-millimeter precision and you're worried about some rinky-dink contraptions floating around Kerbin?  Most of them would be hidden in your map view and they're pass through anyway. The important thing is that you can play with anyone at any time using the stuff you guys have already spent hundreds of hours building.

And why shouldn't Kessler Syndrome be a thing in KSP?

The thing is I don't really want to play with everyone simultaneously, I just want to play with a specific few people. If we're not actively engaged in building something together or space racing I'd rather not have their junk permanently floating around and cluttering up on the surface. As you get beyond a couple dozen players all you're really adding is more non-interactive junk. It's not additive to the experience. Some may like it and join up with a 1000 player server if thats feasible. I personally wouldn't join one with more than 20 people. 

[darthgently]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

The thing is I don't really want to play with everyone simultaneously, I just want to play with a specific few people. If we're not actively engaged in building something together or space racing I'd rather not have their junk permanently floating around and cluttering up on the surface. As you get beyond a couple dozen players all you're really adding is more non-interactive junk. It's not additive to the experience. Some may like it and join up with a 1000 player server if thats feasible. I personally wouldn't join one with more than 20 people. 

Same here.  I mean it might be fun once in a while to connect to a freeforall 100+ player server, but it would be more like a once a year Mardi Gras than a serious weekly thing

[Rutabaga22]

25 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And why shouldn't Kessler Syndrome be a thing in KSP?

Because kessler syndrome from thousands of uncontrollable players would make gameplay impossible,

[Vl3d]

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

I'd rather not have their junk permanently floating around and cluttering up on the surface

Colonies would not clutter up the surface. They would just be a way to let players add the requested cities feature. Buildings have enough room on the celestial bodies.

If you're worried about seeing too many moving objects - I'm sure you could select only specific players (agencies) to view and/or interact with in map view. And the rest of the clutter could be hidden by only viewing active missions in the planets' real-time multiplayer bubble.

Your issue can be easily fixed with filters.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Vl3d

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Vl3d said:

Colonies would not clutter up the surface. They would just be a way to let players add the requested cities feature. Buildings have enough room on the celestial bodies.

If you're worried about seeing too many moving objects - I'm sure you could select only specific players to view and interact with (agencies) in map view. And the rest of the clutter could be hidden by only viewing active missions in the planets' real-time multiplayer bubble.

So your solution is to have a local group of players on an MMO that can only interact with each other. Might as well just cut the MMO part ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[mcwaffles2003]

I hope there's a fairly hi player cap. There's fun for me in joining a big mess of a lobby with random scatter from players long past so long as it doesnt bog down the game. But theres also fun in focusing on tasks in a small server with just a couple friends or companions. Honestly, I hope it just takes on a minecraft style of multiplayer, and Im not even a minecraft player, but I do see the appeal and it would help the games longetivity with the public as many people like to be in large servers together, especially if their favorite streamer is running it and playing with them. Simple example  could be spiffing brit on factorio getting over 500 players on a server and seeing the madness that ensues. I think he specifically will have to wait for a mod if he wants to harvest the resource of tea.

Edited November 17, 2022 by mcwaffles2003

[Vl3d]

3 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Might as well just cut the MMO part ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The MMO part is the one that allows you to interact with any player on the server inside the same persistent universe.

[Bej Kerman]

1 minute ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I hope there's a fairly hi player cap. There's fun for me in joining a big mess of a lobby with random scatter from players long past so long as it doesnt bog down the game. But theres also fun in focusing on tasks in a small server with just a couple friends or companions. Honestly, I hope it just takes on a minecraft style of multiplayer, and Im not even a minecraft player, but I do see the appeal and it would help the games longetivity with the public as many people like to be in large servers together, especially if their favorite streamer is running it and playing with them. Simple example  could be spiffing brit on factorio getting over 500 players on a server and seeing the madness that ensues. I think he specifically will have to wait for a mod if he wants to harvest the resource of tea.

I highly suspect that KSP 2 is going to work like Minecraft, the only limits are set by the hardware you're running your server on. If you want to run the 2b2t of KSP, your best bet is good hardware or a subscription. With a highly creative game like KSP 2 that prides itself on mods and customizability, it's the best bet.

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Vl3d said:

5 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Might as well just cut the MMO part ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The MMO part is the one that allows you to interact with any player on the server inside the same persistent universe.

Doesn't mean too much when you have to isolate your group from everyone else because everyone else is just causing you lag without adding value to your gameplay,

[Rutabaga22]

I hope we are allowed to grief. I want to be able to blow up friends' bases and have wars in space. It should be an option for small inter-person play, but for large servers it should determine bases/spacecraft that haven't been used by the player for over a month and allow griefing those.

[boolybooly]

Very interesting.

What I am wondering is, if agencies can compete with human players guiding them in multiplayer, will it be possible to create a game mode where a single player can compete against AI agencies?

 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Rutabaga22 said:

I hope we are allowed to grief. I want to be able to blow up friends' bases and have wars in space. It should be an option for small inter-person play, but for large servers it should determine bases/spacecraft that haven't been used by the player for over a month and allow griefing those.

Why not have many servers ran by players where some are safe and others let you grief?

[Pthigrivi]

4 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Colonies would not clutter up the surface. They would just be a way to let players add the requested cities feature. Buildings have enough room on the celestial bodies.

If you're worried about seeing too many moving objects - I'm sure you could select only specific players (agencies) to view and/or interact with in map view. And the rest of the clutter could be hidden by only viewing active missions in the planets' real-time multiplayer bubble.

Your issue can be easily fixed with filters.

Right but at that point just let us split our server off and have our own space and avoid the hassle, especially considering the structural restrictions your scheme imposes. You've sort of forced everyone into one bucket and asked them to filter their way out.

The critical thing your scheme doesn't allow is for multiple players to share a single, coherent timeline. As t_v and I discussed at some length there are some significant problems that are created by having different players exist in their own isolated time-bubbles and then collapsing them willy-nilly. Objects no longer behave in a fashion consistent with real physics as viewed by all players. Ideally when a player time-warps they should see every object in map view--planets, moons, all of their vessels and all other players vessels--all move naturally through their orbits and not pop in and out of existence. That's what makes gravity assists and intercepting things in transit and coordinating deliveries possible. If I set up a delivery route from my base on Minmus to a friend's base on Duna the process of that transfer should look the same and take the same amount of in-game time for both of us. Otherwise I could tell a player "hey I'll deliver 1-zillion uranium" and then time-warp a decade or two and they'd have it all show up at their base instantly. You can have a space race in player time, but you can't really have a space-race in in-game time because everyone's in-game time is different. Its important to understand that the solar system is a clock-work like place, and vessels are a part of it. You can't just pluck things on and off the astrolabe and have the universe behave normally. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Rutabaga22]

55 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Why not have many servers ran by players where some are safe and others let you grief?

Idk, it could be an option.

3 options for griefing:

Off 

On

Only abandoned structures

[t_v]

Right, take two. The post I was quoting is a while back, but it talks about spatial consistency, and this recent one does as well. 

12 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

multiple players share a single, coherent timeline

12 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

Ideally when a player time-warps they should see every object in map view--planets, moons, all of their vessels and all other players vessels--all move naturally through their orbits and not pop in and out of existence. That's what makes gravity assists and intercepting things in transit and coordinating deliveries possible

Yes, that is the key advantage of the leapfrog model - spatial consistency and perfectly predictable behavior, even when people are making unpredictable maneuvers. Visually, when someone changes something, that change doesn’t show up for you because it would be inconsistent with your reality (a ship that was orbiting Kerbin 5 minutes ago shouldn’t be at Duna, right?) and so it is hidden away from you, until you warp forwards and you enter a shared reality, without any inconsistent jumps. Everybody sees things at different positions, but those positions match up exactly occasionally, when someone catches up to someone else. Vessels do pop in and out of existence in reality, but you don't see that, you see the ship go gray until you warp and see the ship pop back into existence, but in the exact same spot as you were expecting it to be at that time, so there are no spatial jumps. 

14 minutes ago, Pthigrivi said:

significant problems

I still think that the problems are much more minimal than previously observed, at least on the orbital mechanics side, but the extent to which these things mess up has probably been evaluated in play testing. The point is that these problems exist, and can't really be resolved under this system. Resource problems are a whole new can of worms. You can take the Local Bubble approach and stop people from transferring resources when it would cause a problem, or you can once again have the issues of future ships with more resources interacting with earlier ships. 

 

However, I had a few questions about the leapfrog model which I think point out a few points of inconsistency. Here are a few hypotheticals; how would you deal with these? These problems are exacerbated with larger time differences, but they still exist with small time differences. 

Player A has a station in LKO in year 100, that has been around for a while and people have had the chance to see it. Currently, the last interaction was in year 100. Where does player B, who is in year 101, see that station? Do they see it, or does it disappear once player B warps past the point where Player A is?

Second, Player A then uses a tug to move that station into GKO. For a few minutes, that station is not able to be interacted with, but ignoring that, where does Player B see the station, from their vantage point in the future? Does it jump to the GKO orbit, adjusted for the time difference? Or was it hidden all along, so there's no harm? To be clear, hiding the station poses a problem, which is that the player that is the farthest ahead in time is effectively alone and the only way to leave that state is to wait for other players to warp ahead. 

Third, Player B has resource routes feeding their colony that pass through Player A's base. None have triggered since year 100, but now the station is in a different spot. When the next window happens, does the route just break? Or if it doesn't, what does Player B see? 

Fourth, Player A is sending the tug over to the station. The same route system is set up but is more frequent, so the last supply mission passing through was after Player A's time. Player A cannot access their station due to interaction rules so there is no risk of it changing orbit, but now they cannot dock their tug. How would this be resolved, simply making Player A warp to Player B's time? This becomes a big problem when players set up supply routes between colonies, as entire sections of critical infrastructure could get blocked off when someone goes into the future. 

Lastly, assuming that Player B in the future can see the new position of player A's station (as it is in the future), what happens when player A launches a new supply run feeding the station from the Mun? At the start, player A's trajectory is suborbital, so from player B's perspective it has already crashed into the ground and disappeared. But once in LMO, player A leaves the mission for a moment to deal with an aerobrake somewhere else. Does player B see the new craft in its orbit? What are the rules for how long something needs to be present for it to project into the future?
 

[Zaffre]

Glad to know that competitive and cooperative modes are coming. I had assumed it was going to be all competitive.