Jump to content

KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

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

In a "Huh, that's interesting" sort of way maybe, but otherwise it's apples and oranges.   

A flight sim only needs to track a player in 3 dimensions, plus a few vectors and some other info.   A Space simulator, which KSP basically is, has to track the same info and vectors, but also needs to track a player in 4 dimensions and how to rectify discrepancies of that 4th dimension.   

Multi player in most games is quite simple in theory, server time is the time.   That doesn't work in KSP, and that's 98% of the issue.   The 2% is a well documented approach to setting up MP and the logistics of doing so, and really shouldn't even be part of the discussion because of this.    Getting the theoretical side of time rectification to work specifically in KSP is the crux of the issue, not how many players can get on a single server. 

Will PD/IG create dedicated servers?  I doubt it, but they may, but if they do, there probably won't be a lot of them.  Cost.   What we're most likely to see is the option for players to host servers of their own and invite players to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the developpers confirmed that players could interact with each other, by exchanging resources for example (what a strange way to describe a collision!).

I played a lot of MFS in multiplayer with friends. And while it's fun, there was no interaction between us: no collision, our relative position wasn't precise at all, I kept seeing my friends disappear in invisible clouds (they are client sided), the model of the plane was sometimes a generic 3D model.

Other players in MFS are an afterimage, nothing else. While it's fun to follow a propeller plane going 120 knots, I cannot imagine doing the same in KSP with crafts moving up to thousands of m/s in relative velocity.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think a massive multiplayer aspect to the game is coming out at all apart from getting an ingame community library where people share their creations (like Spore did for example). And even then, I don't think this kind of feature is necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/4/2022 at 7:02 AM, Gargamel said:

In a "Huh, that's interesting" sort of way maybe, but otherwise it's apples and oranges.   

A flight sim only needs to track a player in 3 dimensions, plus a few vectors and some other info.   A Space simulator, which KSP basically is, has to track the same info and vectors, but also needs to track a player in 4 dimensions and how to rectify discrepancies of that 4th dimension.   

Multi player in most games is quite simple in theory, server time is the time.   That doesn't work in KSP, and that's 98% of the issue.   The 2% is a well documented approach to setting up MP and the logistics of doing so, and really shouldn't even be part of the discussion because of this.    Getting the theoretical side of time rectification to work specifically in KSP is the crux of the issue, not how many players can get on a single server. 

Will PD/IG create dedicated servers?  I doubt it, but they may, but if they do, there probably won't be a lot of them.  Cost.   What we're most likely to see is the option for players to host servers of their own and invite players to them. 

Hey Gilgamesh... just a quick insight, and I guess a question as well. Multi-player was 'never' a big part of KSP1, it was setting itself up more as a space/mechanics sim than a sandbox for the player and their friends. Most 'sims' are this way for the specific reason that sims require a certain technical expertise, whether it be cars, planes, or rockets. I guess I keep coming back to the question of... why are so many people trying to change the 'genre' that KSP has created, into something like Space Engineers or Empyrion. I mean... if I wanted to play a co-op open world building sim, those are the go-to games at this point. I just see multi-player coding taking up additional resources, and starving other assets in order to create at lackluster multi-player experience, and again... taking away from a single player space sim that already established itself as a genre defining experience.

I get the idea of wanting the "lets be friends and play in a sandbox together"... however, how many times does it really turn out that way. Most of the time it turns into grief'ing, and hostility, and just nonsense; who knows, maybe you've had a different online experience than I have; need we look any further than these forums? lmao. The pre-occupation with multiplayer just seems like a waste of resources both in dev-time and CPU processing. Not to mention most people are playing on 'potatos' these days (see supply chain issues). I'll go out on limb and say, I guarantee you that multiplayer will be looked down upon by those playing single player as taking up too many "resources", and those who really wanted multiplayer will be griping and complaining constantly about the lag, instability, and issues with mechanics to a point that they don't play multiplayer at all. It's a lose/lose situation for the dev team...

Edited by saxappeal89129
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, saxappeal89129 said:

Hey Gilgamesh... just a quick insight, and I guess a question as well. Multi-player was 'never' a big part of KSP1, it was setting itself up more as a space/mechanics sim than a sandbox for the player and their friends. Most 'sims' are this way for the specific reason that sims require a certain technical expertise, whether it be cars, planes, or rockets. I guess I keep coming back to the question of... why are so many people trying to change the 'genre' that KSP has created, into something like Space Engineers or Empyrion. I mean... if I wanted to play a co-op open world building sim, those are the go-to games at this point. I just see multi-player coding taking up additional resources, and starving other assets in order to create at lackluster multi-player experience, and again... taking away from a single player space sim that already established itself as a genre defining experience.

I get the idea of wanting the "lets be friends and play in a sandbox together"... however, how many times does it really turn out that way. Most of the time it turns into grief'ing, and hostility, and just nonsense; who knows, maybe you've had a different online experience than I have; need we look any further than these forums? lmao. The pre-occupation with multiplayer just seems like a waste of resources both in dev-time and CPU processing. Not to mention most people are playing on 'potatos' these days (see supply chain issues). I'll go out on limb and say, I guarantee you that multiplayer will be looked down upon by those playing single player as taking up too many "resources", and those who really wanted multiplayer will be griping and complaining constantly about the lag, instability, and issues with mechanics to a point that they don't play multiplayer at all. It's a lose/lose situation for the dev team...

What?

What is the question you wanted to ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

guess I keep coming back to the question of... why are so many people trying to change the 'genre' that KSP has created, into something like Space Engineers or Empyrion.

Here it is (it says that you stated it because I took it from inside your quote)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, t_v said:

Here it is (it says that you stated it because I took it from inside your quote)

Oh, I see it now.   The period at the end kind of hid it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2022 at 6:22 PM, saxappeal89129 said:

I get the idea of wanting the "lets be friends and play in a sandbox together"... however, how many times does it really turn out that way. Most of the time it turns into grief'ing, and hostility, and just nonsense; who knows, maybe you've had a different online experience than I have; need we look any further than these forums? lmao.

[snip]

Last time I've seen a griefer in a co-op game it was on a 200 pleople Minecraft server some 6 years ago.

And we dealt with him in 5 minutes, with a ban and a localized rollback of a single building.

 

And that was Minecraft, you can get your griefing tools ready (a bucket of lava and one of water) in 10 minutes since starting. Building an orbital rocket and doing a rendezvous maneuver to reach your station is beyond the attention span of your average griefer.

 

As I already said coop multiplayer mostly means a small 3-10 people server with friends, and in that scenario you're in control of the people you choose to play with, griefing is not a problem.

Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'll also say as skeptical as I've been in the past about multiplayer I think it could be a great vehicle to bring new people to the game, friends inviting friends and teaching them as they go. Im less worried about grief also because it's not like you can harvest other peoples vessels, just smash them if you felt like being a jerk, and like Master points out that takes skill and effort that you don't expect out of casually annoying players. Accidental collisions are much more likely, which is why I worry quicksave paradoxes might be a problem. 

Edited by Pthigrivi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

I'll also say as skeptical as I've been in the past about multiplayer I think it could be a great vehicle to bring new people to the game, friends inviting friends and teaching them as they go. 

Couldn't agree more! Multiplayer definitely expands the player base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some, but for me specifically the new tech and colonies are the big selling point. Sure, mods do that, but only with a lot of jank. So that will definitely improve my experience, while I doubt that I could convince my friends to buy KSP2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some comments have been redacted and/or removed.  A few reminders:

  • Please avoid personal remarks.
  • Please do not make accusations.
  • Please do not tell other people what to do or not to do (you're not a moderator).
  • Please do not "threaten to sic the moderators" on people.  If you believe someone is behaving sufficiently inappropriately that they're violating forum rules, then by all means file a report and the moderators will have a look.  However, beyond that, you are not allowed to discuss or threaten that publicly.  Once you've filed the report, you're done-- we'll have a look, please don't respond further in the public thread or you'll just make our jobs harder.

Thank you for your understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2022 at 11:23 AM, Vl3d said:

Multiplayer will boost numbers at release, it's one of the strongest selling points for marketing.

I'll explain my theory again... since it seems multiple points have been missed. I'll conclude with my "opinion" on the matter and how it relates to KSP multiplayer. If you dislike my opinion and my thoughts on the matter, that's perfectly fine, please be respectful....

Take a look at other games where physics is a large degree of what the CPU (meaning the entire computer not just GPU or processor) has to calculate in multiplayer. These games suffer from a great deal of lag (looking at you Space Engineers), when calculations have to be performed on multiple computers in real time as things happen... it gets ugly; processing power for even high end computers is sub-par... my Z690 Unify X mated with a 12900KS even struggles (rock solid on A64/Intel Burn/Cinebench for 24hrs, at 5.4ghz golden core, and 5.3ghz all core). Technology just isn't there yet, now add in N-Body (if that will be a thing), or even just the "surface tension" physics that KSP1 applies etc.

So you're talking about multiplayer functionality (I mean real functionality) when I'm personally not even certain that they've slayed the Kraken at this point. I think its overly ambitious, and it sets the dev team up for failure, and their fans up for a huge disappointment. In the perfect world if we were running our games on "future tech" (quantum computers) where there was a 100-fold increase in processing power... would I like KSP2 to have multiplayer? YES... PLEASE! and ABSOLUTELY...

However, I'm a realist, and KSP2 has a lot of moving parts (pun intended)... so if multiplayer turns out to be a half-baked function of the game, with no 'true' playability in the state that hardware is currently in then, I say "leave it out for now". If tech takes a huge leap forward in the next year or two, then by all means code for it. I just don't see it happening at this point.

Feel free to disagree, please be respectful...

Edited by saxappeal89129
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2022 at 11:23 AM, Vl3d said:

Multiplayer will boost numbers at release, it's one of the strongest selling points for marketing.

Yes I get that... marketing sold a lot of copies of Cyberpunk 2077 as well. However, the functionality of that game, and its ability to run on certain platforms was all but a failure. The rebound to that was a gaming culture that snapped back at CD Project Red, and darn near collapsed the studio as a whole; it actually affected financial markets. The brand (Cyberpunk) and the developer now have a tarnished reputation (Witcher and so many successful releases) all wiped out by some poor planning.

What I think you're asking, is for this smaller dev team to overcome a lot of present day hardware challenges with a lot of 'tricks', and by tricks I mean genius programming. That's a lot to ask, and if/when it comes out and it doesn't live up to "multiplayer-fan" expectations of a living universe of kerbal ships/stations/platforms... then there will be a backlash.

I've read many of your prior posts talking about "seeing a large starship leave a dock from space while you're viewing planetside", and "playing with large space stations and craft" etc. I just don't believe hardware is there yet, or at least I haven't experienced it yet...and I'm currently sitting on two very different but powerful rigs; a Z690/12900KS, and a X299/i79800x, the later being a true workstation build that's designed for mass calculations, encoding, bla bla bla. I'd love to see functional massive multiplayer, but I honestly think that's still 10yrs or so out with a sim program like this. Empyrion hasn't been able to do it, Space Engineers (Keen) hasn't been able to do it, and several others have come up short.

My basic ask is... slay the Kraken, if they can do this in single-player, without too many sacrifices in realism or visuals, then I'll be 110% impressed; because I understand how bold this game is. Scrapping surface tension physics with parts would certainly do a lot to free up resources, and I'm sure there are other ways (I'm not a software engineer), but again I think hardware is the limiting factor with what you're asking.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but we'll have to wait for the game to see if that happens.

Edited by saxappeal89129
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2022 at 10:41 PM, Master39 said:

[snip]

Last time I've seen a griefer in a co-op game it was on a 200 pleople Minecraft server some 6 years ago.

And we dealt with him in 5 minutes, with a ban and a localized rollback of a single building.

 

And that was Minecraft, you can get your griefing tools ready (a bucket of lava and one of water) in 10 minutes since starting. Building an orbital rocket and doing a rendezvous maneuver to reach your station is beyond the attention span of your average griefer.

 

As I already said coop multiplayer mostly means a small 3-10 people server with friends, and in that scenario you're in control of the people you choose to play with, griefing is not a problem.

I experienced a griefer in "Hell Let Loose" just 12hrs ago, last evening... this is a very niche multiplayer game; don't ever believe it was a Steam best seller past it's 24hr release date/time. So if a niche' game, 6 months after launch has multiple griefers... well, I'll *scratch my bald head*. Also experienced griefing in WoW Classic, people jumping in my screen space just to get attention. Also experienced griefing in WoT (World of Tanks) *Constantly in this game*, with people blocking friendly fire, or ramming/pushing-out into enemy lines of fire. I could go on if you like... honestly, let me know... I'll go down the list...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, saxappeal89129 said:

I experienced a griefer in "Hell Let Loose" just 12hrs ago, last evening... this is a very niche multiplayer game; don't ever believe it was a Steam best seller past it's 24hr release date/time. So if a niche' game, 6 months after launch has multiple griefers... well, I'll *scratch my bald head*. Also experienced griefing in WoW Classic, people jumping in my screen space just to get attention. Also experienced griefing in WoT (World of Tanks) *Constantly in this game*, with people blocking friendly fire, or ramming/pushing-out into enemy lines of fire. I could go on if you like... honestly, let me know... I'll go down the list...

I think that these are two different arguments that you two are making. On the one hand, yes griefing exists, and on the other, there are tools to stop it if necessary. Your experience with WoW or WoT sounds unfortunate and unpleasant, but different games are designed differently and KSP can be nicely grief-free with easy design decisions. Here are the differences that KSP has or can have that reduce or stop griefing compared to other games:

- KSP is a very time-intensive game, because it takes longer to execute actions. While pushing someone into an unfavorable position can take probably up to a minute of setup, hitting a station with a missile can take up to 15 minutes, starting from a nearby celestial body. This has a double effect of discouraging grinders and giving more time for others to respond between actions. 

- KSP is not a competitive game, in that it does not have inherent systems that require the game or authorities to be impartial in their judgement. If someone is considered attempting to grief, they can be banned without having to justify reasons. 
 

- KSP will probably have players interacting with each other over long periods. This means that unlike in online games where a grieved will just move on and keep griefing, grinders in KSP will be stuck with the same people if they want to keep griefing, which gives time for moderators to ban and rollback.

-KSP isn’t run in a match environment. When you are griefed  during a match, the match ends and your gameplay experience is harmed. But when you are griefed in a persistent world, you can roll back the server or hopefully just that station to repair the damage. 
 

So yes, griefing is a problem, but at @Master39 has pointed out, KSP 2 is in a prime position to be griefing-free. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, saxappeal89129 said:

"Hell Let Loose"

A 50 VS 50 FPS.

 

1 hour ago, saxappeal89129 said:

WoW Classic

An MMO RPG.

 

1 hour ago, saxappeal89129 said:

WoT (World of Tanks)

A PVP tank arcadey sim.

 

Do you have an example of a game that's even remotely similar to KSP? Because yes, if I join a pub now in TF2 I'm pretty sure that I'm going to find it filled with spambots, and is a 50-50 when joining a casual on Overwatch I'm sure I'll find 2 snipers as DPS, a Moira not healing and a Roadhog flanking.

Any coop game or game in which people build things together has griefing prevention or fixing tools, and if they're missing it's a matter of the multiplayer portion not being developed up to modern standards.

 

2 hours ago, saxappeal89129 said:

Take a look at other games where physics is a large degree of what the CPU (meaning the entire computer not just GPU or processor) has to calculate in multiplayer. These games suffer from a great deal of lag (looking at you Space Engineers), when calculations have to be performed on multiple computers in real time as things happen... it gets ugly; processing power for even high end computers is sub-par... my Z690 Unify X mated with a 12900KS even struggles (rock solid on A64/Intel Burn/Cinebench for 24hrs, at 5.4ghz golden core, and 5.3ghz all core). Technology just isn't there yet, now add in N-Body (if that will be a thing), or even just the "surface tension" physics that KSP1 applies etc.

If your reference is Space Engineers I can understand why you think PC hardware is not there yet, out of all "build your veichle out of parts" games it's the one with the worst performance, and, since when I tried it I had a metered connection I can also say from experience that even the simplest settings uses an abnormous amout of data.

Other similar games don't have nearly the same kind of resource hog Spage Engineers has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Master39 said:

A 50 VS 50 FPS.

 

An MMO RPG.

 

A PVP tank arcadey sim.

 

Do you have an example of a game that's even remotely similar to KSP? Because yes, if I join a pub now in TF2 I'm pretty sure that I'm going to find it filled with spambots, and is a 50-50 when joining a casual on Overwatch I'm sure I'll find 2 snipers as DPS, a Moira not healing and a Roadhog flanking.

Any coop game or game in which people build things together has griefing prevention or fixing tools, and if they're missing it's a matter of the multiplayer portion not being developed up to modern standards.

 

If your reference is Space Engineers I can understand why you think PC hardware is not there yet, out of all "build your veichle out of parts" games it's the one with the worst performance, and, since when I tried it I had a metered connection I can also say from experience that even the simplest settings uses an abnormous amout of data.

Other similar games don't have nearly the same kind of resource hog Spage Engineers has.

Space Engineers takes up far less resources than KSP1 when both programs are actively running; matching unmodded for unmodded.  Feel free to prove to me otherwise, do runs with both and provide me with your CPUID cut sheets and HWM sheets; include all clocks, temps, stagnant resource allocations, clock-cycles used/unused etc.

It's not what I think, its what I know having played both games on both X299 and Z690 platforms; and I know the same of Threadripper. Furthermore, if you'd like to continue this debate I'd be happy to construct a poll on hardware for this forum, to see if the average user even comes close to these very capable platforms. Most people are on Z590 at best, and my 4yr old X299 will rip that to shreds, and still struggles with KSP1 in "average" scenarios... again solid on Cinebench, A64, Intel Burn, and we can even compare our scores on 3D Mark if you like as well.

Please feel free to include YOUR PC specs (all of them), and continue to give me updates on your KSP data (FPS, CPU usage, Dimm usage, temps, and clock-cycles used/unused, as well as initial resource allocations etc.) Yeah, provide facts with screenshots, or it's not proper evidence. Just saying a thing... doesn't make it so.

Looking forward to your results...I'll even give you a "one-up" and tell you what mods will stress Space Engineers the most, and you can bench those in comparison to KSP1 vanilla. I think you're not giving facts, and I'm pretty sure you know it. It's nice to debate, but now provide the evidence.

Edited by saxappeal89129
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, saxappeal89129 said:

Space Engineers takes up far less resources than KSP1 when both programs are actively running; matching unmodded for unmodded.  Feel free to prove to me otherwise, do runs with both and provide me with your CPUID cut sheets and HWM sheets; include all clocks, temps, stagnant resource allocations, clock-cycles used/unused etc.

It's not what I think, its what I know having played both games on both X299 and Z690 platforms; and I know the same of Threadripper. Furthermore, if you'd like to continue this debate I'd be happy to construct a poll on hardware for this forum, to see if the average user even comes close to these very capable platforms. Most people are on Z590 at best, and my 4yr old X299 will rip that to shreds, and still struggles with KSP1 in "average" scenarios... again solid on Cinebench, A64, Intel Burn, and we can even compare our scores on 3D Mark if you like as well.

Please feel free to include YOUR PC specs (all of them), and continue to give me updates on your KSP data (FPS, CPU usage, Dimm usage, temps, and clock-cycles used/unused, as well as initial resource allocations etc.) Yeah, provide facts with screenshots, or it's not proper evidence. Just saying a thing... doesn't make it so.

Looking forward to your results...I'll even give you a "one-up" and tell you what mods will stress Space Engineers the most, and you can bench those in comparison to KSP1 vanilla. I think you're not giving facts, and I'm pretty sure you know it. It's nice to debate, but now provide the evidence.

Among multiplayer vehicle building games (KSP1 is not one of them) it has terrible performance (again in multiplayer) there's something wrong in how Space Engineers manages multiplayer, I don't know what but it's there. 

On top of that a game based on voxel terrain and deformable crafts and buildings, it has a whole additional layer of physics involved that KSP2 will never have.

KSP2 won't be a MMO game, that's for sure, but in the long list of reasons why performance is so far down that isn't even worth arguing about.

And, on that note, nope, not going to do a complete suite of single player tests and benchmarks comparing Space Engineers and KSP1 (which I never even mentioned), since my point here isn't single player performance nor  KSP VS Space Engineers.

Edited by Master39
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

So i see posts all the time regarding multiplayer and I wonder why they wont talk about multiplayer or even comment on it. Well as a field mechanic for a rental company I will get a call to goto a jobsite, lets say a welding machine for an example. Ill pull up at the jobsite. Put on the ol' hard hat open the door get out and walk up to the equipment and begin to look it over. Ill check the basics. oil, engine coolant, belts, fuel level, and just give it a overall look over looking for anything obvious such as fluids on the ground, melted wires, etc....anything that will indicate a equipment failure. Now keep in mind I've only been at this machine maybe 2 mins and here comes the customer walking up...." So what did you find wrong with it?" "I got a crew on the clock that needs this machine how long is it going to take to fix it?" At this point im thinking to myself "Is this guy for real? I literally just pulled up to the machine haven't even diagnosed it to know what's wrong with it and this guy expects me to predict the future!" So I proceed to explain to the customer I cant answer his question because I just got here and haven't had a chance to diagnose the problem. I don't know if any parts will need to be ordered or if its something simple I can repair quickly...again I don't know what's wrong with it yet! The customer depending on his mood may make a comment like "Well, I thought you were a mechanic? If you cant fix it perhaps we just need to get another machine out here!" Keep in mind we are at about the 5-10 min mark since I pulled up most of that time was spent answering stupid questions that could of been spent actually trying to diagnose the equipment in order to get answers to those previous questions. So with all that being said lets apply this same scenario to KSP2 and multiplayer where the devs are the mechanic and we are the customer. So we ask the devs questions about multiplayer such as will it do x,y,z? Or will it have x,y,z? We get no answers on anything and I think I know why. For one they are still working on it and trying to diagnose issues. Until those issues are worked out or diagnosed with a solution the question is not answerable. In short THEY dont even know.  And hell if i was a betting man i'm sure the thought is or was in the past considered if multiplayer is even doable at all.  But I think we have some other issues as well. The devs (mechanic) is not communicating that with us (customer) leaving us guessing. Why? Just be honest and state the facts and situation. Its not that hard or complicated unless YOU made it that way at which point you better double-down and put that fire out or the problems are going to start stacking up.  So did the devs bite off more than they can chew by announcing the multiplayer feature before the netcode was even devised? Thats like the mechanic telling the customer " ill have it fixed in a jiffy!" before he even knows whats wrong with it. He would in essence be BS'ing the customer correct?  So now 3 hours have gone by (3 years for KSP2) and the customer, who is now angry realizing the mechanic BS'd him, wants to know what's the holdup. You told me it would be fixed in a "jiffy".........well?  Then the mechanic just ignores him. How do you think that scenario ends? So this is where we are at now with KSP2 and multiplayer. No communication. Customer left guessing. Time delays. And we are still no closer to getting that machine running and dependable. Would a simple screenshot have gone a long way to appease the customer? "This is what I found wrong. This is what I need to do to get you up and running. And this is the approx time it will take to make that happen" Why is this concept so hard? A screenshot takes a whole....what? 30 secs to take it and shoot email off to the community manager or just post it yourself?  For a mechanic to tell the customer " It will be ready when its ready!"  Is the same as the devs telling us "KSP2 will have multiplayer" 3+ years prior and now with yet another delay.  The word "transparency " its a term or mantra we seem to use alot these days. So.....where is it? Or do we just use it when it's convenient? 

Edited by Redneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except your welding machine needs to work right now, the multiplayer isn't available for at least next 9 months. You don't have to, and simply can't know what's wrong with your welding machine if it's still in the factory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Except your welding machine needs to work right now, the multiplayer isn't available for at least next 9 months. You don't have to, and simply can't know what's wrong with your welding machine if it's still in the factory.

Ummm.... well it wasn't in the factory if it was already at the jobsite and working. But lets use your analogy. Lets say its at the factory still. The engineers (devs) know why its not working. Somebody knows and the problem is they are not telling. why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...