Arugela

Maybe it would draw in more players and get them more money to hire more people. would it be that hard to test when they have extra time. Aren't there a lot of tools out there they can use to get it up in a basic sense? Maybe even free ones.

If you never unsych it there is no problem with waypoints.... Therein is illuminated 99% of the problem with multiplayer! You can also minimize the waiting to almost nothing. The flow of action would not stop warping that much of the time. Only when really needed. You have planes/rockets going to destinations that will take 100 years... You can warp through most of that unhindered. Just have to stop and do other ques earlier if you don't put in orbit. Which you already have to do potentially. It would play exactly like it does now! Waypoint do not mess up warp if everyone is using the same warp. If you mean as an alarm system yes it would stop the warp, but that is the point! It would not desync warp however. You would only use them on things, if you are smart, that need to be done. AKA before a burn or something else important. Something you want to get your attention. It would not however desync the warp as everyone would come out of warp together. It would affect everyone at the same time. It's using the concept of a que just like it does now in a natural non purposeful sense.(AKA time progressing) But, if everyone can freely move around everyone can go to the ship being stopped. Or sit and wait while they do something else. it's a matter of choice. This is why I don't understand whey they have not done synchronized multiplayer yet... It would be easy in theory to implement in a basic sense to get out the window. And do a lot of what people would want. You can still hypothetically race and do most competitive things in a cooperative setup. I wonder if they have worked on it that much or if there is another technical issue they ran into.

I still think cooperative multiplayer is the easiest to initially implement. And it can be done in a fairly seamless way. 1. Everyone works on the same team. The games originator is where the game loads from and the universe swirls around. Everyone else is added like a tree to the same person and their pc calculates from his perspective relatively. AKA they revolve around him(Of it's changed to the KSC and everyone revolves around it.). He is the KSC head hauncho per say or the team leader. Players can control multiple vehicles(one player controling a node. Nodes are any object from kerbals to drone controls etc. Only controled from here stears unless flying is made more complex) or share view from the same vehicle/Kerbal...(AKA the same view ability in every multiplayer match game. Look but no control) Maybe all things in game are directed towards a kerbal or Unmanned node.(It already is basically.) You then can go first person from the kerbal or third person(literally what exists already.) The primary reason for this is to make mutliplayer seamlessly started from single player. Then a person can open up slots in single player and then add slots for others and open it to internet connections. Maybe even during play. but any single player can be turned into/turned off from multiplayer at will. It would have a guild permission system to control things if the owner doesn't want free reign for everyone. 2: Warp simply works by checking everyone's warp status. It takes minor coordination to do properly on the players part via in game chat or indicators of other for warp status. Once all people are in warp it actually warps. Everything else is live. But you wait for warp. There can even be an ability for the owner(or anyone given permission) to force warp on others. Or even override entirely like in single player. Everyone(the whole game) would go in warp. This allows an override warp and the ability to put AFK or annoying people in warp to stop anyone from hijacking warp. Simple. In teh case of multiple warp speeds the slowest take priority. As long as their isn't massive lag everyone should be fine. And if you need to do things with lag you could wait and do it when others are offline. Again, a simple way to work around issues you already would need to. Just another part of organization needed to doing any cooperative game. As I like to call it, it's literally mission control being simulated better. 3. Mission control functions added. This is like the window for showing what ships are in space but from a time standpoint and not a where/space standpoint. This helps you see from mission control(or any tab in space.) when a new mission is comming and when you need to do it. This could go with the ability to use more waypoints that are simply for time. Add 1 hour say to a warning. You could use the physical existing path system to point and add a waypoint and say slow down here. then if you are warping and any time event happens it stops and alarms you. you can have the ability to permanently ignore objects etc to simply organize everything using the current in game functions with minor additions. Then in multiplayer you simply play a little more like you were mission control land the team in space simultaneously. 4. There can be a generic warp setting that is new that says any warp speed. AKA a ready button. this then lets the warp be controlled by whatever speed is lowest of the other warpers/players. This way accidents can't happen. Then when everyone is done everyone can warp at max speed to the next destination. Or pause and log out. All players entering the server enter at a ready state. This stops or minimized interuptions of the gameplay when players enter the game. 5. As indicated earlier any match can be made multiplayer. A single player can be opened and closed to other player. Full ban functions exist etc. So can only entering certain names(white/black lists) and passwords if desired. At any time a single player game can be opened and a multiplayer closed to single player again where it has no external connections opened in any way. Just like now. There could also be a virtually resourceless lobby system like in many games that help find game. There could be an option to set your game in an official lobby system. Maybe options for other non official lobby systems. These could be non hosted and files are shared from the host. Unless hosting only needs a single file from the head player initially or something and it's easy enough. 6. People can go to any ship/node in the game including KSC like in single player at any time. Unless the server/game owner changes this. This allows complete functionality. You just have to share warp. which if you are working together should not be hard. You just use any logistics in game to think out in a very minor sense what you are doing. Alarms systems will help automate it. 7. A controlling player can always have the ability to force others to do things for warp access or control of a node. Heck two pilots being able to control from a double cockpit can work also. Stubborn player or disconnect can be take control via the second cockpit or control of Drone control node). The head person can even give others this ability via guild like permission system in most MMO's. Any potential issues with flow of play can be dealt with via this hypothetically. Along with a little forethought on players part. In fact having to play a little more like a NASA mission headquarters could add some more fun to the game. Especially if more depth is added to what you can do once you get in space. One of the most needed things in the game. 8. Whenever two people are not in range their individual system load and process the areas separately(Albeit from the owner or KSC as center.). As the game does not need to now that I'm aware of. This should make multiplayer a very simple change to the current game. It is already mutliplayer from this perspective. But with only one person currently. It's cooperative play. Everyone is working together to do missions. But can split up however they want to do stuff. There would be a single (or whatever files currently exist) that are updated out of range to show where it is going. Then if everyone's in range there is a more intensive update. The main file can be on the owners computer or designated system(literal server/file location control; this is needed to not kill ssds etc.) for updates. Then single and multiplayer are basically multiplayer/server like and are the same thing. Multiplayer would literally be single player but with multple people and warp being custom to the user. The waits are minimal if the players are donig stuff simultaneously. People can always be told to put one mission on standby to warp. Unless and until oxygen and lifesupport are added. But that would be part of the mission logistics to start with. And mutliplayer would make it easier to not run out. I could imagine docking being much more pleasant in multiplayer. Unless someone is being a jerk. 8)

I think the thing with gas caps is they should probably be on existing parts on top of being radial options. I know there is also the wierd thing with those holes at the front of the MK2 cockpit and whatnot that should be monopropelient holes to help stop the craft. but they were not put on. Which is a shame. they should really go back and add all the stuff that was never put in the game that was supposed to. Most of them would be insanely useful. I'm tired of having to create bidirectional stuff to slow my ship when most of my ship parts should already have a means to do it. There are alot of things that should be in the game already but aren't. It looks like they stopped halfway through with most of the objects in the game and never made stuff work. I bet they originally planned to have much more complicated and realistic software to stop the ship and control movement. Probably to act like real craft. How does every game start out that way then they never do it. It's not like in this game there is no realistic version to model after. they could probably even get a simplified code from nasa or the form of it. There alot less excuse with it being based on real life analogs. There should be tons more stuff in this game. We should get real SAS type stuff like the real shuttles and stuff had. Almost totally realistic docking procedures etc. So, I think the existing parts need to be hashed out fully also. Isn't there alot of automation in real spacecraft. Add that stuff in then focus on making more realistic missions to do so there is something to do in the game. Model everything more after how real spacecraft and missions work and add in things reflecting real missions or planned missions. The games controls are all simple simply because there is nothing in the game to do. Which is pretty silly as we have a whole host of real world analogs to model. This game should be full of things to do. How about more realistic experiments. Put in walking in stations and have it where you actually grow plants and run experiments and get results etc. Same thing with more analysis of the environment on planets. Anything and everything that can be thought of. This game needs more dimensions added to it. (more aspects to it not dimensional warp.)

Maybe I'm thinking of an english scythe: I know there used to be american and other scythes with massive blades and long handles... I think for practical purposes and in some case as a display of your manhood. 8) This might be convertable into a lightsaber. Obviously special case use though.(concealing the evidence. SHUUU!!)

What about the tin of beans with a lightsaber on it? 8) This shows some of how you use one in practice.

I'm bored looking up random stuff and ran into star wars ideas on who snoke is and what not about the upcoming stories... I always thought a lightsaber scythe would be interesting and very dangerous. Started wondering if this is what sith comes from as they all dress like death who used a scythe... Reaping death etc. Death of society death reaping/culling it. Then I looked up stuff on an actual scythe lightsaber. Not alot there. And what is there is a bunch of weird arguments on saying they would not be good based on how an actual metal bladed scythe would work... A 7 foot tall shaft with a 5 foot blade not being good for battle(assuming it wouldn't be realistically) even if the blade were changed to plasma taking away those disavantages... Arguments like it's unweildy and can't block. A 5 foot blad can be rotated and anything going into the blade goes into the advantage of the direction you can hold it. Directly into the shaft where you have handles to hold the force. It's ideal for stopping blows. If you need to block rotate it at the shaft like a clock hand and move back and fort. It has reach and the reach can specifically be adjust just like any stick weapon. Not to mention using one to cut down wheat creates alot of handeye coordination. It's part of using it as a tool. I mean insane ammount of hand eye coordination. Stick the point end would not be hard except for the fact it's probably designed to make that hard with angling to not hurt people accidently while cutting down grasses.. this was a natrual danger as people worked in rows. they had to spread out and stop when the guy in front of them stopped to be safe. There are alot of safety features build in naturally. it's also very hard to hurt yourself because of the design. the danger is to other people normally. But the changing of metal to a plasma blade takes off all safety and make it like it can be. dangerous if competent or incompetent. It is naturally lethal. No more safety from blade direction or curvature stopping the potential point end from hitting others. Not to mention the weight of the blade(depending on type of scythe) is literally in the blade. This create momentum to cut for some scythes. It's now light and agile. As I said the natural length of the shaft and how you swing a scythe is not that dangerous to yourself except in really odd positions. Like if it leaned on your shoulder holding and rotated and the blade hit you(assuming it can physically). Normally being a slicing tool you don't take damage. And you can design it so it won't even touch you easily. the length makes just touching someone lethal which is easy with a very long pole with a very long blade perpendicular to the shaft... It would be very hard to block without it being able to be pushed into you. And unless you have a long sword you cannot use alot of sword techniques as you can be outreached. And it's design makes it very dangerous with a plasma blade to get in close as the long blade and it's angling can be easily brought closer to the weilder where it would be very hard not to be touched at some point by the blade. Unlike a metal blade where you would have to put some work into harming the other person but could probably put a hell of a defense and push them around or hit them. And with accuracy from using one enough in the field could probably hit the scythe blades tip with pinpoint accuracy anywhere you wanted. One of the threads what this: http://www.thestarwarsrp.com/forum/index.php?threads/lightsaber-varients.65978/ They must not have ever used one for anything. As is likely now a days. But even outside of that they argue very simply and can't separate their arguments from the different versions of the tool as argue it like a physical bladed tool as opposed to the plasma one. which makes all direction of the blade dangerous. And don't understand the nature of one besides assuming from some pictures. Lets say someone who has used a scythe there whole life you would not want to risk them not swinging it and hitting you how they want to at will. It would be a big mistake. 8) And that is with one with a curved naturally safer metal blade. One designed to be as safe as possible to those around the user. Having a very long perpendicular blade gives you a lot of options. So does every aspect of the design of the handle. It is a complex reaching tool meant to do many things. If there were a plasma bladed scythe you would literally reap people like you do wheat and leave them lying on the ground in paths. The only weakness is potentially in the shaft not being resistant to the plasma blade. But remove that and it's insanely dangerous. Let I don't know how hard or easy it would be to dodge the weapon taking damage. It is potentially a complex curved shaft. Meaning odd angles to employ to block parry twist and or attack with. Even without that you have alot of blade surface to avoid things and reach to make it dangerous to move in. Real scythes would be limited by the blade in some ways but have a lot of interesting things to do with them and not have to worry about the shaft. The color of the sith blade and their black cloak looks like death and possibly a long sword like in the book of revelation possibly. So instead of death a red saber like the red horsemen with his double sided blade....(Which I believe some groups treat as a red sword) I forget what they represented. I think one is death the other famine and another disease and one war? It would fit the end of the world and the possible empire bringing punishment from god like the Assyrian and Babylonian empires did to the Jews and ten tribes in the old testament. Biblical comparisons are very easy and potentially likely to some extent in star wars.(The basic type of story of the jedi and the empire.) We even now have plageous. The sith in the movies could partially be a compilation of the four horsemen or something similar. Vader being war possibly, Sidious taxation or the selling and control of what for money during famine?! Might be a stretch but you can pull stuff from it. I say this because they use red swords and not scythes and look alot like how people think of death who is often pictures with a scythe. Not to mention the book of revelation can be interpreted to some point as an image of how societies change and go through natural decay...(This was the Roman period after all) The start of the book is speaking to churches conditions similar potentially to decay of a group through phases. Basically like the rise of fall of civilization from the perspective of a church. The jedi and sith easily comparable to churchs organization in many many ways in many many directions. They are depicted as monks after all and could be analogous to many similar things. Very easily the past of the jedi compared to things like the crusades. Although I don't know who wrote what or with what specific intent if any. Also, I think one of the reasons for the four horsemen is often believed to be literally what happens or happened during a siege of jerusalem. Hence the combination of war famine and whatnot... Not sure what might connect where besides Naboo obviously. But there could be a lot of connection to stuff in the various stories in the bible let alone any other part of history where these images can or have been historically connected. Even if they don't totally fit some of the important and traditionally emphasized parts could be and the beliefs/views surrounding them. Either way christianity(And also easily judaism or even Islam) has alot of connection to the roman period of history and can be easily connected to any use of it in a story. Especially if any western/european culture/perspective is meant to be seen through it.(And obviously greek, roman, and other middle easternish cultures relevant historically.) Note the word Sith is a bit like scythe also. This was one of the original things getting me thinking. Hence the connection to the bibles death rider as these can also be potentially connected to empires during certain periods of time like the Romans or Babylonians or any other similar period of time. (and simultaneously greeks or other versions of death) The flaming sword(they "ignite" their sabers) or double edged sword is also highly religious imagery potentially. In the hands of monk like beings albeit... I was also looking up stuff on the darth jar jar theory! 8d I've always like the drunken master idea. (Tins of baked beans!! >< Now that needs a lightsaber and should be stuck into the movie!!) These are shorter scythes(I think normal sizes) and show the downsides of a normal one. But I think there used to be much larger speciality ones. Either way with a plasma blade it would work a bit differently. Not to mention I'm thinking of something with a more substantial blade, which I think used to exist. I think they were designed with more reach and a longer blade to get bigger swaths of material in one swing letting one person do more work. http://site.baryonyxknife.com/blog/category/manual-mowing/scythes/page/2/

If they are teasing about things you can hook up to maybe it's lifesupport modules you can literally hook up to or stuff for more advanced refueling like the mods that let you hook up a pipe with a kerbal. I would love multiplayer lifesupport and robotic parts... I would love just about everything. And would love to get everything. 8) Edit: maybe it's that old launch tower but with the added features of actually fueling your rockets. And maybe rockets will actually have to roll out to the launch facilities and hook up and fuel etc. So, maybe realism overhauls! That is one of the best things they can do for this game. Add depth. Just keep adding this little things not in the game in mass and see what else is needed/missing and keep adding!

The green button doesn't remove it from the fuel when you put it on the runway though. It shows it as empty or full fuel. It doesn't remove it from the fuel indicator it. It's still shown as fuel like all the other fuel. That is what I was referring too by putting it in a new section of unaccessible fuel.

They could change is to tanks that have the connection symbol turned off are shown in a seperate line than accessible fuel. then if you have full or empty fuel and it is turned off it does not show up with the main fuel. It would be easier to figure out that way. I still want a bar of fuel in the VAB/SPH that allows you to empty/fill all tanks for testing COM. And have it follow the order of fill/empty you put on all the tanks.

If that involves playing at the same time with separate warps you still have the problem of if people do something in the same area during that period while not synced. You have the issues of time travel in fiction. the only change is you lessen the time where you can warp at once. That works best for TBS(turn based strategy) games where the actions are simple. If one guy moves faster the piece is moved faster and beats him to it or the action does not matter as it is calculated at the end of the turn. There is no way to calculate everything at the end of the turn and still do anything without it becoming boring. This is a live interactive game. If anyone in this game moves out of sync you have more wait times. You just moved the wait times to later or deal with them in a funny manner. You must always deal with wait times. Either deal with them live or deal with them later when you run into their already moved item. It's picking between options. There is no way to have the ideal. That is why I say get a synched warp instead of asynchronous until you can figure out what type of asynchronous does not interfere with the game design if any. Unless I'm misunderstanding the previous idea. Which I might be. I believe there are worse problems with waiting for asynchronous warps because of unrealistic (Unrealized, Farscape reference! ><) realities it introduces. Not to mention it is more complex to potentially deal with/keep track of. If you do synchronous, in this game at least, you can still override and do live warps if all items are in stable orbit. There is little to worry about past a few situations(takeoffs, midflights, landings etc). Unless they add life support. Since you just loose time waiting for a next rendezvous potentially in the worst case scenario. Even with life support you just need a pause feature and wait for each other, or since it's multiplayer do the mission yourself while the other guy is away(cooperative play design benefits). Assuming you make that a fundamental of the game. Freely moving to do any mission no matter who started it. AKA single player with multiple people. This leads to an obvious statement. Some fundamentals need to be added to multiplayer no matter what though. One of which is, unless there are separate teams, people need to potentially be able to freely take control of structures(or at least partially). Even if they are not theirs.(Unless a controlling player decides not to allow it because of specific rules for his game.) One thing is obvious though, whichever way you make it, adding asynchronous elements, even if added to synchronous, is making the game literally into a TBS(Turn based strategy game) That is literally what a TBS is. It is literally defined by adding the elements of an asynchronous nature to a game format on a technical level. And you are then dealing with all elements whether that TBS is a hard turn based version or allowed to play out more freely. You are literally adding every literal element of a TBS to KSP. This is because the point of TBS games is to add turns to allow asynchronous actions between players for short periods. Even if on the surface it appears like it is synchronous. It is really only synchronizing players at periodic time intervals with what are technically asynchronous actions between(AKA you are synchronizing asynchronous play periodically.). Which is fundamentally an asynchronous game at it's core. So, KSP has to do synchronous to stay a pure live game. Or it has to start adding TB elements to become asynchronous on some level. Asynchronous is hard because this game is not design for periodic asynchronous actions that can be tallied in a predictable manner(unless I'm missing something). It is a potential live interactive game by it's core at all times. And they literally must start adding the infrastructure of a TB game to add any asynchronous elements. From what I can see anything not tallying the game in the end(AKA set turns) is just another form of synchronized warp. And anything tallying the game(Or any asynchronous elements) is adding endless complexity(technical and non technical) and is no longer potentially live play. While, ironically to many, wait periods are actually live play. Which can actually be completely avoided/bipassed with player control/permission structures! 8) To simplify, asynchronous gameplay(in all forms) is literally turn based play. That is it's true technical definition. You are adding periodic checks to a live game. Recognizably or not. It is technically backsteping the design from live play to something more primitive on some level to achieve it. And there is literally no way to avoid it! Technically you can only try to control it.

Mechanical arms(mini Klaw?!) Anything allowing for a robotic joint to make objects movable for things like ground based docking. Sweepable wings More/Bigger asteroids!! >< I think there are other things but I can't remember.

That was why I suggested a MMORPG guild permission systems. The base system is mission commander. He has his game and says lets open up for four players in single my single player game and putit up in a game finding program. People see 1/4 slots open and join. Or they get theirknown buddies to join. But we coudl also allow free moving of people between objects. They can freely go to the KSC and go to the menu for craft and switch craft. Their PC woudl start processing from the point of the new craft visually. The game might use the logic of having them rotate around the commander to address the world rotating around one player. Use a ready check system for warp with the commander to have override. and have other permissions for customization to allow anything. It could be almost the same as mutliwarp in flexibility. This could allow people to switch between multiple kerbals and ships to help play the game freely. Or go get the other ship and get it ready to be on a docking path. When needed warp, etc. Lost of ways to give control or make it work out. It's single player with multiple people. Add in view mode and more than one person can be on the same ship/object. One controls the others view. That covers all logical grounds. But then the game needs or will be oriented on more things to do in mission. Which I would think would be good. Maybe we will come up with and see more ways to play the game from the games standpoint. More goals. As the game would be dealing with them more. Maybe analyzing rocks or doing whatever. It would be fun to help each other unload kerbals and run around loading up vessels for travel or whatnot. I would think you would need to have people choose the vessel they are in and switch freely though that way you can efficiently help each other. Or else it would be hard to get stuff done. If there are technical issues with the games seeing each others movements out of loading they could have an option and the ability to change when it loads the changes. Kind of like the physics option per second. You don't need to see the changes that fast in order for the other guy to do stuff. Except maybe for comms satelites or something that affects the game. Assuming it needs to be visually represented and not just a check for use even if desynced, which is more realistic. It could update every few seconds. Not to mention in real life delay of info is a real thing and could be used to make some new cool game features. Information update timing. It could be applied to the whole game to add more depth. In essence Fog of War! And multiple other layers to require exploration in multiple new ways. Adding depth to the game slowly. Heck make the upate of visuals based on the technology in the comms etc. Then it matters if you upgrade the comms(note I haven't used comms yet much. But if anything can be added add it tehre for more realism/mechanics). It should be predictive by nature anyway. Then as you get close it can check for accuracy and delays and off information are normal just like potentially in real life. And, like I said in a previous post. I bet asynchronous warp can be added later on top of synchronous warp. So starting with synchronous wouldn't be bad to get it in game and start seeing what needs to be added to make multiplayer interesting and functional. Asynchronous could be a second KSC. The russian analog version with different base tech/parts and mechanism to trade/share tech and do group research or other things. Basically going from 1 to 2 guilds! 8) Then you could have competitive with different tech and the game progresses to cooperative between two groups etc. Eventually info/satelite sharing etc. A space race as you will! 8d Use real life for ideas to put in the game just like their RL analogs. Would make it easier to come up with mechanics. LIke giving each their U.S/Russian tech base seperately. It could give some ideas for new parts. Especially if each sides analog part is not exactly the same. If asnych if finally added on top of synch! "KSP 2.0 Let the space race begin!!" >< I bet that could add a lot to non sandbox games. Both in things to do and new ideas to add to the game. End game could be cooperative play opening up between guilds. If I knew how to make mods I'd be working on this right now! >< Has anyone done this sort of multiplayer in a mod yet? Synch mod based on MMORPG guild systems. I wonder if the idea of players rotating reference around the commander works practically. Or his assumed position. I assume the game can still rotate around him even if he leaves game. If you get two guilds going can you send players from one reference to the other if needed for things. Even if staying on the same team for cooperative play or other random needs. Assuming it's helpful to anything.

One thought on the waiting is if you can freely switch between kerbals/ships you can be a copilot etc. Just add to the depth of the game so there is more to do. Then waiting and single que warping won't mater. You will need help or use it. Just need to add depth to the flights. The game is already heavey on being easy/simplified. Add some of teh stuff so a NPC does an OK job but is predictable. Make is so a player can do more. Either way stuff to help each other should/could make up for multiplayer waiting issues. Plus you can organize mission so the boring stuff is done while the others are offline or something then sitting in orbit or on the way. But the depth idea can help eliminate this also. Just need to add more realism to what it takes to get into orbit etc. what else would they do on a real mission potentially. Either way you can have enough permissions to do certain steps while others aren't playing. A 20 minute launch Doesn't need to be 20 minutes. It can be warped if no other live missions are happening. which means it will not be 20 minutes real time unless others are busy. Plus what are the sync issues. can you have it center on one player or server centered in multiplayer then have people moving around with the server having the universe around them minimally. I sort of thought that sort of issue would be the same regardless. and if you have one warp with the single player current setup wouldn't you have less sync issues. wouldn't each machine process independently and be like any other mmo. Isn't there a minimal amount of info needing to be passed as long as they are out of each others ranges to some extent? That or it can go into a more synchranized mode when they are near each other helping. Although I kind of thought that would be no different as the switched around units near each other. Wouldn't that be simpler than the other mode. They can always add in a single mission que setup(which is single player with a few extra slots) and then add asynchronous warp later. The waiting sort of fits the nature of teh game anyway. And you can always help each other or do it offline. And if not they could focus on adding things to the game for people who are working on the game at the same time on the same mission. Those are things needed in the game anyway. Basically non player generated things to do on destination and possibly more technical details/potential difficulties on flights etc. As long as they are not too boring and superfluous. Having a basic mutliplayer would give a mindset to start figuring those things out as people would deal with the realities and naturally start seeing more of the issues. So to simplify give everyone more to do so doing the same mission together is not boring. Hypothetically that would deal with the whole issue. And it's a badly needed part of missing depth in the game currently. I think most of the issues with multiplayer is it's really just missing things it needed anyway to make multiplayer and single player more fun no matter which way you do it. Edit: Just noticed the X is no in synch in the above thing. Derr.... Either way.. 8) I definitely think the waiting can be dealt with. and it would make the game much better in the process. It would force the need for more gameplay additions over time. All of which we've been screaming for anyway! As I said before. Why not add asynchronous warp abilities over time if they are needed. Start with synchronous work your way up. If they did dedicated host vs player hosted game could they do hosted with only a small file noting the games needed data. Like location of objects etc. Isn't the required data fairly small in this game? Or is it more complicated than I'm thinking. I don't know why I brought this up... Couldn't object location be kept track of with just a small file change constantly. then whoever is hosting just need minimal data and it updates and references. If the game already does this when out of range in single player you just let the computer side deal with the life info until you have to do things in range. Is it expensive to track other moving objects out of full loading range if you simply stuck a new person in a current single player match. I was assuming most of the live stuff was separated and could be loaded onto different players machines already. can you ahve players not in the middle of the universe. AKA having them rotate around the other player. Or the base player as the reference? Possibly simply adding multiple people. Or does that not work? If you did synchronous first could you simply do it as a single guild then add asynchronous if you find a way and make it guild(s). It could get multiplayer in the game faster hypothetically. Assuming a bunch of stuff. Then you would have solar systems of players against other solar systems of players all rotating around(referenced to) each other... Maybe swapping between the base players as needed. Even if not on the same team. Assuming non coorperative/ competitive stuff is put in by default at some point.

Do you people read anything anyone posts. It can work easily with multiplayer. It basically already is mutliplayer. They just need to implement it and stop whining about having seperate warps... There is no reason for it. You don't need it to even get the same general effect. Having one warp there would be zero differences in how you play the game from having separate warp besides it working. you have to warp regardless. the only thing you need to do is maintain proper controls over who/how warps are controlled(this already exist in every MMORPG in existance let alone other software.) and kick people if they become annoying and won't let warp go. Or go play together and enjoy finishing the mission. There is no end to how you can set that up. It will be exactly the same as multiwarp in practice. the control layout like in MMORPGs can be made to allow any desired playstyle easily. Including being 99% like the multiwarp concept. And it wouldn't even take that many options to basically let it do everything. You would already want that kind of versatility anyway regardless of mission type. As I said, it is already a missing part of the current game. Mission ques!! That is multiplayer! This is a NASA simulator for god's sake. It's that simple. One KSC everyone joins the game creator. They can move about freely unless restricted by the owner somehow. They all help each other. Cooperative base game system with the ability to give permissions! Unless there is some problem with people being in different ships simultaneously there should be no issue. The warp is the easiest part to manage. The game already has the infrastructure for it. Just need some minor conveniences like a visible warp/mission que and a new type of waypoint or two(Maybe some auto features for stopping warp and ignore flags with optional timers) minimum for making the game tell you when stuff needs to be done and stopping warps. Anything else is just extra nice features. Which would be nice obviously. As far as warp control giving a NASA headquarters style mission control structure is a beginning point. One guy has lead and can give out roles/permissions. But a simple full layout of options/permitions also is needed for other playstyles(likely looser ones). This can be done with the normal guild permission system. It would be fun to be able too switch around different vehicles/kerbals and help each other on missions. You could get alot more done that way. One guys can get his lander going to refuel and whatnot and the other guys could be driving the rover/aircraft to destinations. When the base work in done the free warp to speed it up. Or wait for everyone else to be done to do missions while warping a little. that or generally make vehicles that go fast to destination. It would add some more design elements to missions.

The answer is one warp period. You wait for checks and have a guy with overall power as default(but with changeable settings.). it's what I called cooperative multiplayer orientation. It's literally a system to act like a real NASA control center waiting on mission with predetermined stops to do things. A que! Make the que flexible enough to do anything else you want. all needed system can be added to pre-existing ones to get the desired affects for 95% of the game play. you could have as many people in game as desired this way. Just have to play mission control on top of pilot etc. Only limits are the computer systems. You start a mission and inputed stops or natural stops occur(you would add more to the game potentially). You warp to the next stop(unless you wish to start a new mission via a launch in between etc. Which you could add as a stop to know when to launch.) you go to the next thing and do whatever. If you have multiple things you do them as needed with people switching freely(assuming mission commander sets it up this way) and do what is needed then warp to the next thing. You can have people do seperate vehicles simultaneously or one vehicle together or any combo. But use one warp. You already have one KSC why not have one command structure. Albeit a changeable one to allow different playstyles. This type of system should have been in game logically already. So it's not a stretch to make it the center of multiplayer. Just give it the options to make it flexible from this central core and it covers all other gameplay types if and when desired. BTW, stops are literally like waypoints with a different function. Although you could do more with them. Waypoints would be the simplest way given the current game. And you could add auto stops on nearing planets etc. This would allow players to put in needed new waypoints if they haven't. and as I stated in an earlier post add things like ignore infinitely to ignore until manually changing to vessel or ignore for 1year,1month or any other given time period(which is the same as a waypoint, and or removing it from the que.) so it stops you when you get to the needed time. The control system to give permissions to functions could literally work like any MMORPG guild system but with unique checks for the game.

I think my que system idea fixes that(coorperative design with the ability to be uncooperative like). You just unwarp on who is first as you hit areas needed to make changes. Make it simply single player with mutliple people. then add some logic to unwarp on certain things and let players designate unwarp points as added options to the current mouse system on the pathing system. You can physically add waypoint but it is an unwarp waypoint. There could also be some logical ways for it to auto do this without adding waypoints manually. It makes multiplayer a KSC mission control cooperative thing. You can still do non cooperative things with the system though. But whoever gets to destination unwarps first and does stuff then sets warp back on etc. The race would be latticed naturally as it progresses. Could add some drama to it actually. It would allow control of seperate craft while unwarped so people can do more than one thing at once. Should cover most of what is needed for multiplayer. And anything else can be added most likely simply to the existing game fucntions like add "stopwarpwaypoint" on the trajectory and whatnot. when both people are done it warps if they are both going. Or you give one guy control for cooperative. Those are both simple things to add and can be done via a sytem like in MMORPGs where you have ranks. You only need two things. The system for one person(mission control leader) and an option for multiple people to need to check in to continue. both of which may need to be working simultaneously for complex missions so people can go afk for long periods of time and mark their mission as done for the time being. Pause would be needed if one person is away and the other person doesnt' ake over their mission stuff. and of course they should both be able to work on the same craft at the same time if desired so it's true cooperative play. Cooperative play design should make the whole multiplayer work out nearly effortlessly in concept. Make it so single player can be turned into multiplayer also. Make them the same thing but the only difference is do you have marked for more than one person. And let people change that if they want to go to multiplayer from single or vice versa. the only problem I can see is making sure you can block off single player completely if desired so no openings in network security occur in single player or something odd like that. If needed let the mission control guy give temp warp control to a player or change over the the vehicle or kerbal on the mission and control the warp together to finish a long ground mission or something. Multiple options would help there. Then wether they are working together, if everyone else is done with their mission stuff and checked as done at the time the other guys can warp as needed to finish and others can come help if they want to to enjoy the mission per say. with the mission warp stops in place it will auto unwarp and warn another mission needs attention and someone can go do it. No issues. And you get a more real world que system to do multiple and complex missions. You cuold also add more waypoints for takeoff times and stuff too so you can catch your ride back etc. You could also have a screen somehwhere like the one to pick a vehicle to change to but it shows the time listing of when the next warp stop will occur so you know what mission is next and see the ETA's to those mission needs etc. I recommend being able to change how many people can join in the game and not before. Then a single game can go from single to multi and back and all multiplayer options changeable in game for maximum flexability. When you open it to multiplayer it can go up on a KSP game finder(or other things of your choice) There could be hosted server space if desired or player hosted only. Hopefully not an issue as it should nto take up more processing power in multiplayer than single as one person could/should only process what they are doing in full. Could be wrong on that though.

What about doing what he said but make it a bubble and stop warm when you go from the blue line to the orange line focusing around the planet? Oh NVM. Why not have multiplery alow people to help with both their planes and the other guys vessel. Then you unwarp on the first vessel needed and do what is needed. Then start up warp till the next item auto stops warning you need to work on it. This would create a game as KSP should have already worked for single player. If you get an item that needs attention you can't warp and have to do it. It creates a working que. anything in a non warp area or slow warp area or crosses a trigger point or some sort can't allow normal warp. The mutliplayer then simply adds a person to work on a second craft at the same time if multiple craft pop up in que together or help give a second hand to a single craft. Then you have a NASA/realworld que system where you work on each project as they hit their important points. And with multiplayer help doing so. That means KSP just needs stuff to show when and where a craft needs help over warping a little better so stuff doesn't auto die. and then the ability to put a craft in a setup where it's marked as not caring. Although that system may need timers added to it or something so you can temp ignore it. Like 1 year or 1month timers until it triggers stuff again on top of an infinite ignore where you just let it go or die etc. So, I think the game just needs a que system that simply utilizes the existing game to make single player more completely and make multiplayer doable. I think that would simply take some logic added to the existing path logic showing where it is going. some invisible or visible things showing when it may need attention. Even the ability for the player to custom make them. It could be added with the add waypoint option when you click on it. You would simply add different markers like in a video/audio editor program to say what it should do. And maybe the ability to design default ones or have a few default ones in the game if needed. This would make multiplayer singleplayer with multiple people. And simply let them work on mutliple craft at the same time if needed. But only one warp system. Then everyone is always on the same time. obviously you would need a chat system to coordinate or they would want some other form like mic system. Which could be fun if you did an ingame mic and chat system and added things to the relay system related to it. Although obviously this could be bypassed with out of game stuff. But it's a player choice then like other in game options. this is assuming though or only viable while in kerbal control possibly though. So maybe for IVA control specifically then work out other modes as you are changing perspective in game..... I think the obviously solution is maintain in game limitation and let free change of base perspective Kerbal/ship/KSC/Satelite/etc. and the coms are always from that perspective as it should be as you change. so if you want free comms you have to back to KSC as your perspective or maintain a ship with proper coms etc. So, in summary, I think you can absolutely do time warp as the game holds it currently and multiplayer. Just not multiplayer warping separately. One single player with multiple people in it like now. Then multiplayer is pure cooperative gameplay which is good for KSP. But it would also have the ability to change ships or control mutliple ships when not in warp simultaneously. Then let the coms and other in game systems be the limiters where and when needed as fits the game design/reasonability/necessity. AKA, again, the game just needs a mission que using the current in game system to trigger it. And the ability for players to add/control the que system by, at minimum, mouse and the pathing system via adding a few new simple options and timed triggers etc. the game is completely compatible with mutliplayer if you look at it from those perspectives. Just needs some light coding. It's ironically one of those things real space agencies have to deal with but is not represented in KSP. And it solves all the problems with multiplayer potentially. the cool think about timers is that it is already repsresented physically. Meaning you can also give it the function of point and click. AKA you click where you want the trigger on the existing pathing and select it as one of the new option. Timer here! When you reach there the timer goes off and warp stops and something tells you what is in need of work. You change to craft etc. Ohhhh, look! The game has these most features like it was meant to be done this way!!! >< You could even have a mission control rank that can be shifted around to different people that gets to control the warp along with multiple ranks with adjustable abilities(like an MMORPG) including potentially warp control. then let people save the game and pause to come back later if desired. It could be an option to have pausable games or continuous games as a challenge level. Then, again, Multiplayer is a big multiplayer mission control simulator with more control features to deal with multiple mission but is literally the same a singleplayer. If done that way you could even in essence go back and forth between single and multiplayer as it's just a matter of other people being in your game.

That would be nice. So would fermi support for vulkan. >< Us people with slightly smaller computers could use it alot! It would be cool if vulkan eventually allowed cross use of CPU and GPU to utilize the full system. Let alone mutli GPU use or something nice. I'm not sure how much it should make possible though. It would be cool if one day mutli computer processing was made a reality also. With how popular hand held devices became i don't know how being able to wirelessly or directly they didn't jump straight on co-processing so you could use computers in your home to aid in game playing or multiplayer games. Hand hend stuff would have been a thousand times more popular if they could work with you home computers. It's not like Mainframes or other similar systems and the coding for it aren't ancient or anything. All of the first computers were programmed like this if I"m not mistaken. They should really get back to sound programming and let people utilize everything they have. If those things were common already they could have made KSP playable on PC and handheld and cross proccessed over Main home computers with multiplayer by now potentially. The coding for lag would have been dealt with already en mass I'd imagine. So much for forthought. I guess 70 years wasn't enough for greed and home pc development.

I thought it meant they were going to be developing free for a while and then possibly doing DLC's. AKA they were going to be putting stuff into this game for a long while before doing a KSP 2. Outside of KSP 1 2.0 of course...

The Higher learning curve after LKO would be nice. It would be more realistic. And it would add a bit to the game. I got really bored after going to minimus and other places. It's too easy and really boring. Plus it would give alot more to build into vessels. Especially SSTO's.

When they did the christmas special sales they said free upgrades up to a certain version of the game. It was past 1.0 and I believe 2.0. I thought they were doing free then possibly DLC after that. I was curious what we were likely to see up to that point. Or what they had hoped to get up to that point in the game. Thought it might shed light on how the updates might go or the odds of seeing certain changes like this. It was the Steam christmas sale for 2015 or 2014. It was just before release when 0.9 or 0.95 or something was out. I thought maybe they were going to do so much upto that update with free updates(base game) then possibly start doing more expansive DLC via a pay wall to make more money. Maybe we can get advanced Aero DLC packs later.

Isn't that what I said? Either way. Back to the topic. >< What if we had modes for different kerbals. One being plant. one animal, one mineral. It fits with the three types currently in game. Until you count tourist of course. Maybe they are Snacks. Snacks consist of all three in reality. and heavy amounts of them. so when the passengers go missing you know what happened. My original comment was a bit of a joke btw. But it could add to the subject. they should probably add more than two things and let people choose on game.

Jokes aside. You do realize games are defined by what you have to do in them. The more game means more items defining it. which is by definition restictions... That is the entirety of what a game is. So the more we figure out the more game we get!! 8d In fact the less game the simpler the mechanics and amount of things invovled. That is less game. So I am the one trying to get more game. 8) So, MORE GAME!! ><

When they did the christmas sale in 2015 or something it said free updates till something like 2.4 or some odd number. On a more pointed note. They could hire or get engineers to work for them or do stuff for fun/free and make the new models. Then they could build not on art grounds but aerodynamic grounds. Maybe a bunch of guys would help build the game for the fun of it. Engineers tend to do that. That could get them new or even multiple aerodynamic models to choose from.