KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Ashandalar]

1 hour ago, SkyFall2489 said:

Well, if we take out the hype, here's what we know for sure:

1. "agencies" - players belong to them, each agency has its own launch pad (i'm thinking maybe teams or factions?)

Nate actually said, about agencies: "each of which is located at a different location on Kerbin", so it sounds like they will each have their own space centre, not just their own launch pad. Whether there will be a few pre-set locations for hand-crafted space centres, or whether it will be more free-form, perhaps utilising colony tech, remains to be seen.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I see that as key. 

Likely to be a limited number of people on any MP game.  Unlikely to be a free for all. But that is my guesswork as well. 

I'm envisioning that with Agencies a few KSC clones will be dropped around the planet.  Emphasis on 'a few'.  If players are cooperative they can all use the same launch facility, but different pads.  If players are competing - they have to use their own particular KSC.  Likely to be equatorially placed.  Maybe each gets a KSC and a different place to use for Polar launching - like we get in SP. 

But to take Nate's words and envision a MMO?  How many KSC facilities would be sprinkled across the planet?  

Minecraft realms allows a 10 player limit.  That seems like a reasonable upper limit to MP in KSP2.  No way we get shooter levels of players (64 or more) vying for space on Kerbin. 

/speculation 

Agree here I say max 12 as its do dividable 2-3 max 4 launch centers, I think we saw one at the SLS launch video as the environment was very mountainous while KSC is coastal perhaps swampy. 
Good point about equatorial placement, one would be 110 degree east, no pesky mountain in you flight path, you fly pretty parallel to the coast and has an half island at 120 degree for ballistic landing of first stages. Second is dessert coast at 130 degree west, again half island at 110 degree for recovery. Last, not sure but probably has to be inland. 

[SkyFall2489]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Agree here I say max 12 as its do dividable 2-3 max 4 launch centers, I think we saw one at the SLS launch video as the environment was very mountainous while KSC is coastal perhaps swampy. 
Good point about equatorial placement, one would be 110 degree east, no pesky mountain in you flight path, you fly pretty parallel to the coast and has an half island at 120 degree for ballistic landing of first stages. Second is dessert coast at 130 degree west, again half island at 110 degree for recovery. Last, not sure but probably has to be inland. 

Well, if this is the case, then PCG is likely incorrect about MMO?

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, SkyFall2489 said:

Well, if this is the case, then PCG is likely incorrect about MMO?

It looks like PCG did not have any info from NS other than what has been quoted.  The MMO speculation is likely drawing conclusions and wishful thinking

Edited November 20, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[magnemoe]

27 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

It looks like PCG did not have any info from NS other than what has been quoted.  The MMO speculation is likely drawing conclusions and wishful thinking

Agree, as in how to solve time warp with thousands of players, and even if you managed that insane task lots would not be happy. 
Minor issues an MMO require an persistent universe, and you will get the obvious trolls putting some thousands probe cores into retrograde 80 km orbit. 
An small scale invite only game will eliminate these issues as you can set the rules. It will obviously be exceptions: I rescued your stranded kerbals flying past Duna, I deliver them in Duna orbit and I keep the craft, as in much more an cold war approach. 

[Gargamel]

13 minutes ago, marselja said:

How many players can be on the same server in the same time?

AFAIK we don’t have any info on that yet, any number you get is speculation. 

[Cpt72Bug]

On 11/18/2022 at 3:36 AM, jastrone said:

funny cause I thought it would just be two indipendent players choosing to cooperate or compete.

Still this is remarkable. Curious to know if competing agency vehicles can dock. Could open a whole world of sabotage up by deorbiting other players science stations. 

[Gargamel]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[jastrone]

52 minutes ago, Cpt72Bug said:

Curious to know if competing agency vehicles can dock

it will defenetly be possible but there will probably be some protection/anti griefing system.  probably something you can mess with in the settings. but ksp 2 has a subassembly system wich allows players to split up one rocket in multiple vessels. maybe you can dock with someones space station but as long as you are connected to the base you are not in controll or have to ask for permission to use everything.

[Vl3d]

During the PC Gamer interview Nate confirmed that kerbals will be "player avatars" with controllable emotes.

Also he said that in multiplayer you'll be able to show "how much of your personality you will be infusing in your structures" (buildings / colonies) - what you build or how. Sounds to me that showing off buildings will be an important part of the multiplayer game. Can be extended to craft. My point is - it requires a bigger audience than just me and my other 2 friends.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Vl3d

[SkyFall2489]

37 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

During the PC Gamer interview Nate confirmed that kerbals will be "player avatars" with controllable emotes.

Also he said that in multiplayer you'll be able to show "how much of your personality you will be infusing in your structures" (buildings / colonies) - what you build or how. Sounds to me that showing off buildings will be an important part of the multiplayer game. Can be extended to craft. My point is - it requires a bigger audience than just me and my other 2 friends.

Possibly.

Another way to implement that would be to just build something like KerbalX directly into KSP2, and use it to allow sending of ships or saves to other players.

Thing is, we are pretty sure that small scale multiplayer is supported. Large scale MP has different challenges than small scale MP. But if the devs can get it to work, then it'll be in the game. We might just have to wait and see.

 

[Pthigrivi]

7 hours ago, SkyFall2489 said:

Thing is, we are pretty sure that small scale multiplayer is supported. Large scale MP has different challenges than small scale MP. But if the devs can get it to work, then it'll be in the game. We might just have to wait and see.

And I don’t think any of us are against 100 player+ servers existing if it’s feasible. We just don’t want that to be the only option. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

And I don’t think any of us are against 100 player+ servers existing if it’s feasible. We just don’t want that to be the only option. 

The extended cut of the interview did not have much more on MP than what was covered in the 'show'. 

I still think the word 'friends' is a hint of what is feasible.  

Upthread, 12 was suggested / speculated at b/c easily divisible by 4...and that has a certain pleasant symmetry to it, given what we do know (4 launch pads at KSC). 

The reality remains that we don't know what will be capable. 

The unspoken bit is what they are talking about w/r/t optimization.  They are using the phrase 'mid tier machines' when talking about optimizing and improving the framerates.  That seems to be the heavy lifting going on in the lead up to EA.  I'm no game engineer - but I suspect that this work will have an impact on how MP plays out - which is another reason for having it late in the rollout. 

I get the sense that they see the implementation of MP to be sufficiently challenging that they want all the other core features nailed down before they see what is possible.  If the game is otherwise well optimized, running with good frames on mid tier machines and the majority of the game is feature complete with no problems then the work on MP becomes a singular challenge on adding that layer of complexity (with the game being a known quantity rather than a shifting target that adds new issues with each update). 

[Some Kerbal out there]

On 8/28/2022 at 6:35 PM, Master39 said:

There isn't a game out there that wouldn't be better with at least a 2 player coop mode.

 

That is true, but all the features like reverting, timewarping i don't know if Squad is going to be able to make it and KSP without reverting would be very very hard and a multiplayer itself is a very good idea

Edited November 26, 2022 by Some Kerbal out there

[SkyFall2489]

2 hours ago, Some Kerbal out there said:

That is true, but all the features like reverting, timewarping i don't know if Squad is going to be able to make it and KSP without reverting would be very very hard and a multiplayer itself is a very good idea

We've all been discussing how exactly to get it all to work out in this thread.

A summary:

We know that "small scale" (just you and your friends) multiplayer will be supported.

As for how to time warp:

Reverts and warps may require consensus of all online players before it happens. Alternatively, saves can be disabled, reverts can just put a new ship on the pad, and a subspace warp system can be used, such as in LunaMultiPlayer (a mod for mp in ksp1).

There are some other ideas out there, but none of them seem very likely besides these two.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SkyFall2489 said:

There are some other ideas out there, but none of them seem very likely besides these two.

Of you ask me, after they revealed the "agencies" thing the most unlikely option is voting or other sync systems.

Having all players on the same timewarp while also making them play in different agencies sounds like terrible gameplay design.

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Having all players on the same timewarp while also making them play in different agencies sounds like terrible gameplay design.

Could you explain how? My assumption from the beginning was that the multiplayer system would not enforce cooperation, outside of supplying optional moderator tools. I could understand the concern that people would abuse a shared time warp in order to hinder others, but remember that this is a game played among friends and this sort of toxic behavior shouldn’t occur often. Additionally, the moderator tools are there to deal with the rare cases that someone crosses a line in their behavior. Shared warp is no more exploitable than other systems for ruining peoples’ experiences, and it seems strange that you are singling it out as a system that would be crippled by competition. In fact, turn based competition is a well known style of play used in many games, and I see no reason to believe that someone would drag out the timer on their “turn” with their friends. Even if they do, they face repercussions. 

[Ashandalar]

20 minutes ago, t_v said:

Could you explain how? My assumption from the beginning was that the multiplayer system would not enforce cooperation, outside of supplying optional moderator tools. I could understand the concern that people would abuse a shared time warp in order to hinder others, but remember that this is a game played among friends and this sort of toxic behavior shouldn’t occur often. Additionally, the moderator tools are there to deal with the rare cases that someone crosses a line in their behavior. Shared warp is no more exploitable than other systems for ruining peoples’ experiences, and it seems strange that you are singling it out as a system that would be crippled by competition. In fact, turn based competition is a well known style of play used in many games, and I see no reason to believe that someone would drag out the timer on their “turn” with their friends. Even if they do, they face repercussions. 

It would be a terrible gameplay experience not because one of the players is griefing, but because of the constant waiting you'll have to endure during normal gameplay. If two players aren't in complete lockstep, always viewing / flying the same craft, one will have to wait for the other execute their manoeuvres before they get to do theirs. Obviously, with competing agencies, players won't be flying the same craft at the same time.

From ShadowZone's developer interview coinciding with the early access reveal, he got a quote that Intercept are "very confident with the timewarp solution". If I were a KSP2 developer, and the above described the best timewarp solution we were able to come up with, I certainly wouldn't be very confident in it.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Ashandalar

[t_v]

1 hour ago, Ashandalar said:

It would be a terrible gameplay experience not because one of the players is griefing, but because of the constant waiting you'll have to endure during normal gameplay. If two players aren't in complete lockstep, always viewing / flying the same craft, one will have to wait for the other execute their manoeuvres before they get to do theirs. Obviously, with competing agencies, players won't be flying the same craft at the same time.

From ShadowZone's developer interview coinciding with the early access reveal, he got a quote that Intercept are "very confident with the timewarp solution". If I were a KSP2 developer, and the above described the best timewarp solution we were able to come up with, I certainly wouldn't be very confident in it.

I agree that this system results in a lot of waiting in between time warps, but your explanation for how competitive play exacerbates this doesn't make sense for me. Even within one agency, players will be able to fly multiple craft, so this problem exists whether play is competitive or not. The reason I was asking was because I was unsure of whether some facet of this system was particularly bad for competitive play. Since it seems that the problem is one that has already been discussed and accepted or rejected, I'll just keep to my own opinion of it. 

Also, to explain how other systems have problems with competition, the Local Bubble/leapfrog system can have a player go into the future and lock down the entire game, forcing people to abandon everything and warp into oblivion, and systems with automatic synchronization have the same problem, except you can see the griefing in real time. All of these systems allow people to easily abuse time warp to hinder others, if someone is determined enough. That is why we need moderation tools, to deal with these problems, because ultimately they won't be fixed by the systems themselves. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Four player game.  Competitive space race.  They're all trying to get a ISRU set up on Mun.  Everyone is happily playing along and because they are equally skilled players they all launch within the same day on Kerbin (separated only by the time it takes for their personal KSC to be in the optimal launch portion of the planet's rotation.  They all circularize, and start the burns to leave Kerbin and get the encounter with Mun. 

The first guy to do so is called away.  Situation is serious enough that he can't return to the game for 2 weeks. 

What happens? 

What if instead of competition they were cooperating and the lead guy has a key component of the desired build. 

The other players likely want to continue with the game.  They all want to warp - but in their game is a ship heading to Mun that needs a burn to capture... And the player is AFK. 

Ghost ship in stasis, greyed out on the screens, waiting for the player to log back in and complete the original mission (he gets a freeby) - or too bad, so sad say goodbye to that craft when the players warp past the encounter? 

Does it make sense to let them revert to launch?  What if instead of Mun the destination was some other planet? 

[t_v]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

What if instead of competition they were cooperating and the lead guy has a key component of the desired build. 

Look, I’m not here to debate over this system as a whole. Most peoples’ playstyles, including mine, would not work with this system. Problems like the one you pointed out above can be resolved through cooperation and a specific group dynamic (for example, you assume that the person missing their window and failing the mission is a problem, which it isn’t for everyone, or that waiting two weeks is a problem, which again isn’t for everyone). Waiting two weeks is a major problem for me and most people I know, so I don’t want to see this system in the game. 
 

I was simply pointing out that competition doesn’t make this system worse than cooperation; the problem can persist in either case. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, t_v said:

Could you explain how? My assumption from the beginning was that the multiplayer system would not enforce cooperation, outside of supplying optional moderator tools. I could understand the concern that people would abuse a shared time warp in order to hinder others, but remember that this is a game played among friends and this sort of toxic behavior shouldn’t occur often. Additionally, the moderator tools are there to deal with the rare cases that someone crosses a line in their behavior. Shared warp is no more exploitable than other systems for ruining peoples’ experiences, and it seems strange that you are singling it out as a system that would be crippled by competition. In fact, turn based competition is a well known style of play used in many games, and I see no reason to believe that someone would drag out the timer on their “turn” with their friends. Even if they do, they face repercussions. 

It's not a matter of exploiting the system or that involve any malice. People playing together, even IRL friends that played together for more than a decade and even when they are talking on Discord for the whole time while they're playing, are on average barely able to organize when they are all working towards a common objective. The level of coordination and cooperation required is beyond what you can expect for a "competitive" game.

I've seen people arguing on simpler things like skipping the intro cinematic of a boss fight, the dialogue in an MMO or setting the game speed in management or RTS games.

Voting for timewarp, timewarp-king or any other system that has the timewarp and location for everyone synchronized simply offload the all the organization onto the players and players are, on average, unable to organize to that level, even among friends. It's an amount of effort few people are willing to put into a game.

 

I'm sure you think you and your group of friends are different, don't worry I think the same (despite the evidence, we spend half of the time on Sea of Thieves hitting rocks or yelling at each other, but I'd argue that that's what makes that game so fun), that's why I'm talking about "the average player".

 

12 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

What happens? 

The same thing that would happen if a player disappears mid session for any other game, video game or not. That's not a KSP-specific problem, it goes for every game, from the MMO party suddenly loosing their Tank or Healer to the D&D group with a friend that has life getting in the way and can't participate in sessions that often anymore.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Master39

[Ashandalar]

14 hours ago, t_v said:

Also, to explain how other systems have problems with competition, the Local Bubble/leapfrog system can have a player go into the future and lock down the entire game, forcing people to abandon everything and warp into oblivion

This can be resolved by synchronising not actually showing the fast-forwarding of time as we're used to in KSP1, but instantaneously jumping to the synchronisation point in the future. This is easy to implement with pure, stable Keplerian orbits (and maybe even under thrust with the new non-impulsive manoeuvres) , so as long as your orbits are stable, it could be as easy as clicking a button and being instantly in-sync.

[t_v]

8 hours ago, Master39 said:

I'm sure you think you and your group of friends are different, don't worry I think the same (despite the evidence, we spend half of the time on Sea of Thieves hitting rocks or yelling at each other, but I'd argue that that's what makes that game so fun), that's why I'm talking about "the average player".

Thanks for explaining, I didn’t realize this and I haven’t been making posts explaining how we have already had this discussion and I know about this. Also:

12 hours ago, t_v said:

Most peoples’ playstyles, including mine, would not work with this system…

Waiting two weeks is a major problem for me and most people I know, so I don’t want to see this system in the game. 

I am aware that the average player, and my friends especially, would have a bad time with this system. Having to coordinate with everyone else every time you have a personal project is something most of my friends would become frustrated with, and I don’t want to play in a server where everyone is pressuring me to get their time warp objectives done. 

2 hours ago, Ashandalar said:

This can be resolved by synchronising not actually showing the fast-forwarding of time as we're used to in KSP1, but instantaneously jumping to the synchronisation point

I just assumed that people jumped anyways, unless they chose to time warp to catch up. The problem I was thinking of isn’t the time that it would take though. It is rare that you can leave your space program for thousands of years, as you would have to do if it got griefed in the manner I was talking about. You would also be unable to prepare everyone for the long sleep, since all of your colonies and ships are untouchable and stuck in the future. After you jump, many ships will have far overshot their transfer courses, colonies will be crippled as slight imbalances in resource flows are taken to their extremes, and you will generally have a bad time. This problem can’t be solved within the system itself, and needs to be addressed by moderator tools such as a revert to a backup save. 

[Pthigrivi]

On 11/26/2022 at 6:04 PM, t_v said:

Also, to explain how other systems have problems with competition, the Local Bubble/leapfrog system can have a player go into the future and lock down the entire game, forcing people to abandon everything and warp into oblivion, and systems with automatic synchronization have the same problem, except you can see the griefing in real time. All of these systems allow people to easily abuse time warp to hinder others, if someone is determined enough. That is why we need moderation tools, to deal with these problems, because ultimately they won't be fixed by the systems themselves. 

I mean the easy solution would be that interaction is off by default, and you define who can dock and transfer resources, presumably with your teammates. This does also bring up something I mentioned with Vl3d though—what are the terms of competition? There’s no warfare, so the most common thing would be space races. But if you’re racing with another team and you aren’t sharing the same timeline even with your teamates how do you have a race in in-game time? Because there’s no common metric of time it seems like you could only really race in real time? As in you could agree “who can get to the moon in 1 hour”, or “who can get to Debdeb by this coming June” but not “Who can reach a new star system by year 20 on the in-game calendar”. 

Edited November 29, 2022 by Pthigrivi