Multiplayer or resources ?

[Alephzorg]

So, if it was up to you and you had to choose one feature, which one would you pick?

Multiplayer or resources?

And can you explain why?

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

I don't really care about MP. For me KSP is a single player game; I have no friends who are also playing KSP and I'm not interested at all to join the public community at any point (for obvious reasons). Especially when they are trying to plug KSP to a broader audience which will inevitably lead to a poisoned community. Thanks, but no thanks... I'll launch my own space program.

[panfish5]

I'm not interested at all to join the public community at any point (for obvious reasons).

Than why are you on the forums?

Anyways I would rather have multiplayer than resources because than I can play with other people and make new friends.

[CalculusWarrior]

While multiplayer is certainly a feature I'd use, I have to say that resources would add so much more depth to the game that I would rather the devs worked on them first. Of course, there is always the chance they'll restart resource development after career mode and multiplayer are complete.

[GusTurbo]

I would actually enjoy playing with a lot of the people who post mainly in the Spacecraft Exchange. But I think resources should come first, because they give you something to do once you arrive at your destination, in addition to science.

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

Than why are you on the forums?

Anyways I would rather have multiplayer than resources because than I can play with other people and make new friends.

I'm on the forums because most of us are actually nice people. When I speak of a public community, I mean: have you ever tried joining an active online community, like America's Army, Battlefield, Ogame or WOW!? Everybody is calling everyone a NOOB all the time in the in-game chat... swearing beyond belief....!? Thanks, but I pass.

If MP was contributing to my game experience, I'm all for that... but even in games like Anno (which one would assume it would attract the more mature audience) I'm cursed to my death as soon as I log on.

[Andon]

Resources. While I am happy that multiplayer is going to happen, resources seem like they'd be a lot mroe fun and would add a lot more depth to the game.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Resources give us a reason to go to places beyond just for the sake of going there. I think that'll be likely an opinion shared by most people who've put 100s of hours into the game. At this point pretty much every phase of planetary exploration is second nature

[chaos_forge]

Why is it exclusive? The devs decided to not implement resources, and they decided to implement multiplayer, but everyone is acting like they decided to not implement resources *because* they decided to implement multiplayer. Correlation is not causation.

[Guest]

Resources. KSP was always a singleplayer game. I don't need to meet new people through the game itself, and it can already be a social activity. Just try playing it in a room full of astronomy students. They'll all be your friends in a short time (personal experience!).

Resources, on the other hand, would add a lot of depth to the game. Squad's proposal for the system might not be best (it's a little shallow for it's complexity), but it can be done such that it becomes an essential part of the later game stages. Resources could be augmenting your income, allowing you to refuel rockets in-situ and establish colonies. Also, once we have life support, long-term bases on distant worlds would essentially require some sort of resource extraction.

[Themohawkninja]

Why is it exclusive? The devs decided to not implement resources, and they decided to implement multiplayer, but everyone is acting like they decided to not implement resources *because* they decided to implement multiplayer. Correlation is not causation.

That's not the cause people are getting. People are just looking at the correlation. Not AS a causation, but just that they decided on multiplayer over resources.

[I_Killed_Jeb]

Resources. KSP was always a singleplayer game. I don't need to meet new people through the game itself, and it can already be a social activity. Just try playing it in a room full of astronomy students. They'll all be your friends in a short time (personal experience!).

Resources, on the other hand, would add a lot of depth to the game. Squad's proposal for the system might not be best (it's a little shallow for it's complexity), but it can be done such that it becomes an essential part of the later game stages. Resources could be augmenting your income, allowing you to refuel rockets in-situ and establish colonies. Also, once we have life support, long-term bases on distant worlds would essentially require some sort of resource extraction.

unless life support is deemed to be too complicated to be fun..

[Whackjob]

I vote resources, just because... well... Would YOU let me log in to your server and take the risk of me putting something on the launch pad?

[sal_vager]

Can't we have the option for both? So development ends up taking longer, we're used to long gaps between releases

[Bothersome]

It would seem to me that it would be way easier to put in resources than to develope a multi-player mode.

And if it's what the fans want most... I guess from Squad's perspective, they think they can sell to some of those hold-outs if it had multi-player mode too. But I think that may be somewhat the wrong crowd to target. People that want multi-player are usually the kind that just want to dominate others. To compete on a real time scale. People that like to think out their next agenda and plan and move with precision tend not to like multi-player because they like to take their time at making those decisions.

So, if the multi-player crowd comes in, are they next going to ask for guns and shields? So much for science and more to fiction eh?

[Stargate525]

I am sick of multiplayer games.

I just opened up my steam library and sorted by date. Of the last twenty games I played, seventeen of those have multiplayer. Almost ALL of them have a sufferable single-player experience. I don't want to play with friends, I don't WANT to meet new people, I want to sit down, play a game, and not have to worry about the other people playing in the same world. When I multiplayer, especially in the 'start a server and play snadbox with others,' it typically ends up with me playing alongside others, rather than with them.

It makes. Games. Weaker. It's the plague along with microtransactions and app-speak that's infected gaming, trying to scrabble for every scrap of the market that they can. Make your game good, and people will come. Do this sort of stuff, and you begin to walk the road to where your game is the same generic boatload of junk that I can get anywhere.

Please don't do that.

Edited December 14, 2013 by KasperVld

[DisarmingBaton5]

Stock resources. KSP was never going to include multiplayer, but we have KMP and the LOG project (if that's still ongoing). Kethane, while a good mod, is a bit simplistic, having 1 resource.

Resources seem more important to the game and more like a "core" element to career mode. I would like to see both in the game eventually, but resources first.

[Brotoro]

Easy choice: Resources would be far more important to me than multiplayer.

I have no interest in multiplayer.

I would have great fun if the game included the option of exploiting resources.

[mdatspace]

Resources. I don't care much about multiplayer, but resources would give a reason to conduct more than just a landing on an object.

[El wonso]

Resources.

MP doesn't bring any new content to KSP.

[FITorion]

What's good about KSP?

Building your own rockets.

What would make KSP better?

The ability to build buildings, colonies, infrastructure to let you build rockets from other locations than KSC.

What is one realistic way to allow that?

Resource mining and automation of such.

But we aren't doing that in real life yet. Any such thing would be sci/fi tech.

We have every technology we need to do such things right now. It is not sci/fi. The only reason we don't do it yet is that it hasn't been cost effective. That's changing. There are several companies right now assembling the hardware from off the shelf technology to go and do asteroid mining. SpaceX is vastly reducing the cost to get to space. With that cost reduction it is becoming economically feasible to go grab a rock floating in space as an alternative to blasting it out of the ground. It is CURRENT tech and near future activity. If you want realism in KSP then resource mining belongs. If you don't want realism in KSP then simplified resource mining still belongs for game play reasons.

[chaos_forge]

Can't we have the option for both? So development ends up taking longer, we're used to long gaps between releases

I second this.

[M5000]

Multiplayer for sure. Multiplayer just adds to the features already in the game without requiring an entire, game-changing set of gameplay dynamics. Resources can't do that without totally changing the way players interact with the game.

You see, what originally attracted me to this game was the fact that there were no resources in the game and that I could just go into the VAB and build a massive rocket with no regards for economic feasibility, health, or safety concerns, and (semi)realistically launch it into space. I mean, the way I understood that resources were to be implemented was that there was a finite number of resource X or resource Y or resource Z and you had to more or less "craft" them together to create resource Q so that you could build rocket part W. Everyone's so scared of KSP becoming the next Minecraft, I don't see why we're so sad to see resources more or less be scrapped. It's Kerbal Space Program, not Kerbal Mining Program. I don't know, it's about creating and managing a space program, even in career mode. Space programs, as far as I know, do not have their own mining divisions. You don't ask SpaceX to go out and mine its aircraft grade Aluminum out of the ground. No, they buy it in its more or less "completed" form and shape it to form the parts they need.

Multiplayer, on the other hand, has the potential to make the game super fun. I believe it was on one of the KerbalKon streams where one of the devs(?) or streamers(?)...Well, someone mentioned that Multiplayer would be cool because you'd be able to get yourself and two friends into a CSM and fly the Apollo 11 mission with them, where all three players could have control over some part of the ship. It's a level of cooperation and immersion that I think would really make the game more interesting to play. I've played the KMP mod on a server, and, while it's still really buggy, it's insanely fun, even if it basically is just a bunch of people syncing to each other in Sandbox mode. The fact that I could, if I wanted to, dock to another player's craft that is being actively controlled, seems, like, awesome. There is literally no other game currently on the market that would offer a (realistic) space simulation in multiplayer. And even if it isn't the favorite feature of some players, you don't /have/ to play it in MP. That's the thing about MP, it's not a required part of the game. There's no possible way that it could actually /subtract/ from the gaming experience involved. Whereas resources, where a fundamental part of the gameplay mechanics were to be changed, there would be a distinct polarization between supporters and opposers.

So, that's why I'm personally really glad that SQUAD is taking the game the direction it's going, it will only help the publicity, and I believe will round out the features in the game. Remember, nobody's going to force you to play multiplayer. So there's that.

[Why No Resources]

Absolutely resources. I think it would work quite well with career mode and economic system. They have already developed many resource mining parts and done a map of resources on Kerbin so it's not like they'd have to start from scratch with implementing resources.

[zarniw00p]

Of course resources. It would add so much to the game.

The ONLY time you would notice that you're playing with other people in multiplayer is during docking. Apart from that you would never see or interact with other players and everybody on a server would be playing alone thousands or millions of km apart from each other... sounds like great fun.

Why waste months of developing time on that?