oh dear god...

[staf7]

IS it true... Has it finally happened! A real time KSP multilayer mod none of that passive stuff

http://sesau.ca/ksp/KMP.html

Its all i have ever wished for!

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

OH MY GOD.

I look at the steam news, but just dismissed it as another mod.

Squad should totally polish it up and add it NOW

[Bioman222]

http://forum.unity3d.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=65521&d=1377691686 Edited November 2, 2013 by sal_vager

[LtHeckard]

Yeah, FINALLY a KSP Multiplayer mod. Unfortunately it's in alpha so it is extreeeeeeeemely buggy.

[boxman]

I cant even figure out how it works..

There are public servers which means you have to host your own, but that is kinda hard when there is no server software included besides the client itself.

Edit: nm.. found a link to the server hosting software on reddit.

Edited November 2, 2013 by boxman

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Yeah, FINALLY a KSP Multiplayer mod. Unfortunately it's in alpha so it is extreeeeeeeemely buggy.

It's not the first, just the only one I think that wasn't passive (allows you to interact with other people)

[The Destroyer]

It's been up for a few days,

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55835-Kmp-0-22-wip-alpha

[deadshot462]

It's a good start. Like every mod, it'll be refined with all the feedback from players.

[Nakara]

At my first impression looking this thread I was like (Yeah, you're kidding me so hard...) and then... OMFG!!!

[vexx32]

It'll be interesting to see how this gets on. It was only a matter of time, after all.

[boxman]

At least this mod shows that it is possible to add some kind of multiplayer support even though it is still very buggy. I really hope squad learns from these attempts and adds some kind of official support later when they are done polishing sandbox/career part of the game.

[KhaosCorp]

At least this mod shows that it is possible to add some kind of multiplayer support even though it is still very buggy. I really hope squad learns from these attempts and adds some kind of official support later when they are done polishing sandbox/career part of the game.

I wouldn't hold your breath...go look at 'planned features' thread, and the 'what not to suggest' thread...multiplayer is one of things listed in the 'probably never gonna happen so DONT suggest it' list.....

On the upside, many MANY people are interested in this, and there has been many attempts in the past to work off of. That = plenty of data from failed attempts and plenty of player feedback, thats does wonders in the hands of a competent developer.

[boxman]

I wouldn't hold your breath...go look at 'planned features' thread, and the 'what not to suggest' thread...multiplayer is one of things listed in the 'probably never gonna happen so DONT suggest it' list.....

On the upside, many MANY people are interested in this, and there has been many attempts in the past to work off of. That = plenty of data from failed attempts and plenty of player feedback, thats does wonders in the hands of a competent developer.

Actually the devs/community managers actually said in past that they might look into it after sandbox/career is completed.

Either way this shows that it can be done even with time warp, which is something that has been said to be completely impossible.

[Wahgineer]

I wouldn't hold your breath...go look at 'planned features' thread, and the 'what not to suggest' thread...multiplayer is one of things listed in the 'probably never gonna happen so DONT suggest it' list.....

On the upside, many MANY people are interested in this, and there has been many attempts in the past to work off of. That = plenty of data from failed attempts and plenty of player feedback, thats does wonders in the hands of a competent developer.

Something tells me the devs are likely to reconsider their decision .

[Monkeh]

No doubt a decent version of this would entice a whole load of new people to pay for the game.

I think Squad like it when people pay for the game.

Interesting indeed.

Good luck with it, might just see if I can get our community to throw up a server for this, we may just have some spare capacity lying around waiting to be used.

[Dingbat1967]

I don't speak for the KMP dev team at all, although I hang out on the #KMP IRC and run the zone-51 servers, but just the enthusiasm of players (even if it's buggy as hell) for the multiplayer capability tells me that there's a real need for this. Lets face it, playing alone KSP is just that, you're playing alone. You can't BUILD STUFF with other people (at least, not easily). If there's one thing I've seen with the strength of this community, REDDIT and other places is that KSP _should_ be multiplayer.

If the only objection to multiplayer was "how to integrate a player timeline into a server timeline", it looks like the KMP devs have figured out one possible solution (the use of subspaces with the ability to sync up with certain other time frames).

Even if it wasn't pure real-time, it does make it a lot easier to build large structure collaboratively (once most of the network issues and sync issues are solved).

I've run a server now for what, 4 days? And I'm flabbergasted by the imaginative ways people solve problems just by looking at the screen caps they send.

KSP Multiplayer would make KSP ten times what it is now in terms of fun.

An analogy would be this: It's like putting a bunch of kids together with unlimited amounts of lego blocks. How much more fun stuff will they come up with versus locking each one up in their own little room?

[Wahgineer]

-snip-

This. If this isn't a good reason to add multiplayer to ksp, then I don't know what is.

[jwenting]

counting down to the griefer kiddos making life impossible for the rest of the users...

[Wahgineer]

Saddly enough, this is true as well.

But on the bright side, the amount of effort you'd have to put into griefing someone wouldn't really make it worth said effort.

Also, as it has been said before, the steep learning curve should discourage any squeakers/COD/IQ level 6 FPS players/general imbeciles from playing/staying commited to the game.

[KhaosCorp]

I don't speak for the KMP dev team at all, although I hang out on the #KMP IRC and run the zone-51 servers, but just the enthusiasm of players (even if it's buggy as hell) for the multiplayer capability tells me that there's a real need for this. Lets face it, playing alone KSP is just that, you're playing alone. You can't BUILD STUFF with other people (at least, not easily). If there's one thing I've seen with the strength of this community, REDDIT and other places is that KSP _should_ be multiplayer.

If the only objection to multiplayer was "how to integrate a player timeline into a server timeline", it looks like the KMP devs have figured out one possible solution (the use of subspaces with the ability to sync up with certain other time frames).

Even if it wasn't pure real-time, it does make it a lot easier to build large structure collaboratively (once most of the network issues and sync issues are solved).

I've run a server now for what, 4 days? And I'm flabbergasted by the imaginative ways people solve problems just by looking at the screen caps they send.

KSP Multiplayer would make KSP ten times what it is now in terms of fun.

An analogy would be this: It's like putting a bunch of kids together with unlimited amounts of lego blocks. How much more fun stuff will they come up with versus locking each one up in their own little room?

Your only taking into account ONE aspect of adding multiplayer to the stock game.....I seriously doubt that the code to pull it off is the deciding factor.

If Squad were to make it part of stock game that adds alot of overhead for them. Servers are not free, nor are people to keep them running properly. You would also have to have multiplayer customer service, tech support, and moderators to make sure rules are followed during online play.....

There is a whole lot more to consider here than 'is it possible to code'.

[Accelerando]

Your only taking into account ONE aspect of adding multiplayer to the stock game.....I seriously doubt that the code to pull it off is the deciding factor.

If Squad were to make it part of stock game that adds alot of overhead for them. Servers are not free, nor are people to keep them running properly. You would also have to have multiplayer customer service, tech support, and moderators to make sure rules are followed during online play.....

There is a whole lot more to consider here than 'is it possible to code'.

Yes  it also depends on the timing, the effort it will take to manage multiplayer development alongside the new features being added each release  equally as deciding a factor.

However, your examples aren't very good. Have you even looked into KMP, or any of the a large number of PC games published since it became possible to connect to players online? Players manage the servers themselves. There is little if any work or money "overhead" involved on the part of the developers, save for maintaining a simple list of servers ex. in various shooters and strategy games. Developers do not, and in most cases do not even pretend to assume the right to moderate peoples' games. Tech support = bugtracker, which we already have. Using it to resolve multiplayer issues is not functionally different from using it to solve singleplayer ones across the myriad of features we already have.

[Dingbat1967]

Your only taking into account ONE aspect of adding multiplayer to the stock game.....I seriously doubt that the code to pull it off is the deciding factor.

If Squad were to make it part of stock game that adds alot of overhead for them. Servers are not free, nor are people to keep them running properly. You would also have to have multiplayer customer service, tech support, and moderators to make sure rules are followed during online play.....

There is a whole lot more to consider here than 'is it possible to code'.

Depends on what kind of server model you want to operate ... you can operate in a centralized fashion like Blizzard's Battle.NET or you can be decentralized or only act as a facilitator (a central server list). What KMP accomplishes is more of a decentralized model so most servers are volunteer run (similar to most FPS).

I understand full well about development priority however lets face it, i would not be surprised at all that Multiplayer games are more viable than single player titles and I'm certain that since ultimately, SQUAD wants to make a good living out of this, they should take this under consideration.

[KhaosCorp]

Yes I have looked into KMP.

And I was talking about if Squad decided to FULLY implement multiplayer.

The problem with decentralized mmo's is and always has been the same....they dont have the longevity as dev/studio centralized mmos, and are plauged with problems like maleware, hacks, and general flaming/trolling crap.....and this is more the case than not with any player/community run servers based games. These issues are greatly reduced with the standards and enforcement ya get with a centralized mmo.

I think my points were very valid, I have been an avid mmo gamer for well over a decade now, playing a large number of mainstream, inde, and beta mmo's, just about a bit of everything....

Not to mention of Squad was looking at multiplayer from a profit standpoint they should probably consider the current most popular format.....centralized free-to-play with option to sub.

Edited November 5, 2013 by KhaosCorp

[Faark]

The problem with decentralized mmo's is and always has been the same....they dont have the longevity as dev/studio centralized mmos, and are plauged with problems like maleware, hacks, and general flaming/trolling crap.....and this is more the case than not with any player/community run servers based games. These issues are greatly reduced with the standards and enforcement ya get with a centralized mmo.

Are you really suggesting that stuff like counter-strike or starcraft do not offer "longevity"? How long player play a game does not depend on its server size but content. PvP games usually offer more, while PvE or story driven games require the developer to publish new content regularly. Private servers are also not worse in terms of cheaters, since you usually have way more admins per player than in an MMO, where the publisher would have to pay for them. It ofc depends on the server "owner", no matter if its a company (e.g. mmo creator) or a small private group.

Yes, developer-controlled servers are currently the industries way to go. But the primary reason for that is that this way they can squeeze out the last penny they are willing to pay out of their players. I really like that Squad appears to not blindly follow that trend!

Anyway, ofc a huge public ksp MMO server would be nice. But imo thats sth absolutely different from the current KMP-like approach. Its impossible to say that one is better than the other, even though you might personally prefer on of them.

[jwenting]

Yes I have looked into KMP.

And I was talking about if Squad decided to FULLY implement multiplayer.

The problem with decentralized mmo's is and always has been the same....they dont have the longevity as dev/studio centralized mmos, and are plauged with problems like maleware, hacks, and general flaming/trolling crap.....and this is more the case than not with any player/community run servers based games. These issues are greatly reduced with the standards and enforcement ya get with a centralized mmo.

and the cost greatly increased of course. It's not something a company the size of Squad can pull off, they'd need to hire hundreds of people just to run the community and servers, police the heck out of things.

And of course, no mods whatsoever as allowing mods opens a massive can of worms for precisely those hackers and griefers.

Not to mention of Squad was looking at multiplayer from a profit standpoint they should probably consider the current most popular format.....centralized free-to-play with option to sub.

There's 3 potential profit models for MMOs:

- pay to play (the WoW model), with possibly a free version that offers limited functionality, and possibly an additional store selling out of game and in game vanity items

- pay to win (the Korean model) where the basic game is free for all but you can only do anything beyond the bare basics, certainly when it comes to pvp (which is always centric to these) without spending a lot of money on in-game items in some item mall (usually far more than you'd pay on a subscription to some other game)

- high initial cost, free to play (the Guildwars model), and expensive additional services and items (usually mostly vanity and convenience items).

In KSP terms this'd mean:

1: the game itself becomes a free download, but everyone ends up paying $15 a month to play it, unless they want themselves restricted to LKO only in which case there's no charge

2: the game becomes a free download, but if you want further than LKO you have to buy each instance of each part using real money (say $0.05 per 1.25m part, $0.10 per 2.5m part, making a 100 part rocket cost $5-$10 per rocket to launch).

3: the price of the game goes up to $50, and every part beyond the basic 1.25m parts has to be purchased once using real money for each game you begin at a cost of say $5-10 per part. So being able to use Mainsails costs you $10, the big orange tank $10, the 3 man capsule $10, the 1.5m decoupler $5

I seriously doubt many of the current KSP fans would be willing to sign up to either of those pricing models.