mcwaffles2003

If B docks to the station on day 1, then the paradox only occurs when B tries to sync with A after B has docked. One solution could be to prompt B that to sync forwards with A would require B's station to be replaced by A's, effectively undoing B's work. If A decides to backwards sync, then A's work would need to be undone. Admittedly, this would require some measure of player coordination to avoid losing ships due to the game trying to avoid paradoxes. I imagine the scenario to look like this: A and B each launch a ship into orbit (assuming the station has more than one docking port) Both craft are at time T=0 A timewarps forward 5 days A is at T=5, B is at T=0 A informs B that they will be docking to the station; B cooperates and agrees to wait until A's save is ready to be synced with (only logical, you want to make sure you set out at the correct time) A docks (assume it takes one day to dock) A is at T=6, B is at T=0 (but can be anywhere between the two) B syncs with A, and then A goes and does something else. The station in B's save now has A's ship docked to it A is at T=6, B is at T=6 B docks A is at T=6+x (x is whatever arbitrary time has passed while A has been doing other stuff), B is at T=7 (assuming it also takes B one day to dock) If B warps ahead of A, then A can sync to B to update the station and A's save. Otherwise, A is prompted by B to update A's version of the station (sort of a reverse sync) to reflect what the new station should be (with both ships attached), as well as where it should be. Both players' saves now have the station with both ships docked, both in the correct position in each player's respective timeline If that's programmable, then personally I don't think it'd be too difficult to get the hang of, especially if taught properly in a tutorial with examples. I think it follows a fairly logical train of thought. Softly, this still doesn't answer the Will they no longer be allowed to sync as their worlds have so vastly diverged? does the station come back? If it does come back what if the station is just moved on day 3? Do 2 stations appear now after the merge or has A been magically transported? What if A and B are unsynced and each researches a different tech? do they get both techs when they sync? Are the science points in the future used by people in the past? Does money function the same way? There are enough causal loops I can come up with here that the spiffing brit himself would dedicate his channel to solely KSP 2 content onward I say all this and I see the conveniences of the dark multiplayer method easing many of the issues you bring up, just... I just dont see happening. Players wouldnt be able to touch other players craft or any point of contact between the 2 along a 4D space... Way too hard to keep track of. If the space station on day 5 with player A is only nudged then there can become a wildly different set of scenarios. You could make it so no one could interact with that station but at that point your making the game a zero touching game and that just seems so much more complicated.

Continuing conversation with you is obviously one as well, Im done.

No its not... SQUAD give us options. This is your way, and only your way. SQUAD let me chose if I want plasma blackout, which I only have in my most recent game. SQUAD let me play without kerbals passing out or wings snapping under g forces Please get off your high horse, we want to select our adventure, not play yours

Why are we only allowed to play the game your way?

not to mention options make for good base mechanics for mods to build off as there is already a relating subsystem... RemoteTech would be a lot harder to have without the optional commnet system. Also, how would we make a difficulty setting without options? @Brikoleur I like plasma blackouts, am I allowed to have those or do you prefer they not exist?

What if some of us don't want to play the game the exact same way as you? Seriously? Your philosophy on options is simply selfish and leaves far less choice of play which will And we will continue lacking incentive to use kerbals

Last I checked... commnet was optional but yet you still defend it... I don't agree with this at all, the only way to play should be the one way you like? why not allow people to set difficulties by allowing more restricting features? Why is it so bad to just put a kerbal in it?

Curiosity moves about 660ft/day, So how about this, you drive the probe rover and in an offscreen simulation the rover drives as if you had an instant connection, when you leave that background version is saved and replaces the current version after the wait time from light lag has expired. Or introduce a simple maneuver planner for rovers Now its a curiosity replica mission! if you want to wait forever if you want your science to transfer and dont want to drive your curiosity replica Are glider probes a thing IRL? :O Also why cant a glider be passively stable? Y'know though, this could all be easily resolved and both sides of the community could have their way with a simple option button to turn it off

I agree but whens the last time you saw a "mostly working game from the get go"? Perhaps let the mass of the community look for them in the final stages as a beta typically goes. Did you watch the segment?

You dont, now kerbals have a value! Also what if the delay for motion was only based on the distance between the probe and the nearest connected kerbal? How does one transmit science without a signal? Build re-entry vehicles that are passively stable?

Use something like mechjebs maneuver planner. Probes: + lighter = more dV - need to plan ahead and no on the fly changes far from kerbin Crew: + instant control always - heavier = much less dV Then kerbals would finally have a real reason to exist outside surface samples/flag planting/labs... Isn't that a tad extreme of a viewpoint? Optional features are good for setting a difficulty curve, you're effectively arguing against an options menu

Worthwhile vid, but the argument starts around 20:40 Early access doesn't have to months/years, but SOME time in it may be appropriate, lets be honest here... There Will Be Bugs

Umm... chill? I wasn't dictating how people play multiplayer, but I was pointing out the absurdity of playing in a multiplayer server in the fashion of everyone playing a separate single player campaign in a single server and saying that I don't understand that point of view... Also, we're discussing how multiplayer timewarping is going to work. Since you have a different opinion should I get mad and accuse you of dictating how I should play? No, because that's unproductive... Agreed, hence my: Thank you for clearing that up. But you do recognize the issue razzark brings up with that, correct? This is a problem, care to address how it is mitigated? What queue? We are obviously not on the same wavelength. Personally, I figure timewarp should go as fast as the slowest persons timewarp and in a server hopefully everyone can be respectful with that, if not, kick'em. But as for connections dropping and what happens when they do? Well that depends on if you're running the server I suppose. If you are, everyone loses connection and has to rejoin at the last save when it reboots. If you're not the host, the game will go on without you until you return, sorry, crap happens. If you can find another way for this to work please do tell. Just curious, when you are imagining multiplayer in this game, how many players do you envision being on a sever simultaneously at max? I assume 4 (we have seen 4 launchpads at the new KSC), maybe 8 as that is a lot of separate physics scenarios for a computer to hold and keep track of.

We'll when you imagine the scenario are you playing with people or are you playing around people? In the situation of with I assume theres a common goal so if theres a long mission the collective group would like it completed, in the latter version I don't know why you're on a multiplayer server. As for: I dont see how any multiplayer mechanic changes a connection drop, nor how it's relevant to the topic at hand.

If everyone's locked in the same time and you're on a 5 year long mission while others are on hours long missions why not come back to your mission and do something else in the meantime?

That makes sense, when I hear performance I think CPU hit since that's far and away the bottleneck

Does restock really hit performance? It's just new models

We spend a lot of time on here talking about the new mechanics, physics, parts, yadda yadda yadaa. We dont talk much about kerbals and their role though. Personally, I feel there's a lot that could be put into them, but I also understand and like the simplicity of them. A few more questions: Should they have different personalities (more than just 2 bars that don't change their behavior)? If so, should their personalities affect more than their expressions? Should there be more roles for them? If so, what? Should they be able to take on multiple roles simultaneously or be trained? What new roles do you want them to take on?

Wooooooow lol My boy's got that oppo research rockin xD

Getting to a place with a probe is a challenge, getting there with a heavy payload is the next challenge. That's 90% of the difference

They've said no weather, to me that says no physical interaction between dynamical weather (wind/turbulence/etc) with the ship

How I feel minus the warp drive. Warp drives, like the alcubierre drive essentially make gravity wells non existent and trivialize most of the underlying core concepts within the game

Honestly, I think kerbals are really underutilized in KSP and this would just make it worse. I really hope in the sequel kerbals have more practical uses and advantages so probes aren't as OP

Specifically was talking about : I was purposing It's a possibility as the answer was an "IDK" from a non-engineer and I'm fairly sure it's a functionality of unity in the recent versions .

I assume it's because he wasn't talking to the engineers. @Snark Do you know what position at the company the guy you interviewed has?