t_v

So, in leapfrog, you have to be around the same time to properly intercept craft in transit. If you coordinate the same way in local-bubble (or whatever we call it, idk), then the planets line up in the same position and you can intercept things at the same time with no problem. Nowhere is there a situation where you can interact in leapfrog and not interact in the other system (if you find one, that'd be an interesting discussion). On top of being able to intercept when you are at the same time (which is basically what leapfrog requires), you can also intercept when the two planets are in the same position relative to each other, even if you are thousands of years apart. I think that players being very far apart will be common which is why this system helps especially there, but if players are close together, my system functions very similarly to leapfrog except you just don't have any situation where you are a few hours, days, months behind a station that you need to access. Edit: What I'm really getting from this latest page is that the biggest benefit that the leapfrog model has beyond free time warp is consistency. Things behave exactly as you would expect them to always, and there will never be a situation where someone is at Kerbin one hour and at Duna the next, unless you time warp that hour into a year or two. The price being not always seeing or being able to interact with with what other players are doing is something that is mitigable with coordination. That answers the question that I was having: instead of mitigating de-synced positions using coordination, you can mitigate de-synced time using coordination, and that is a better thing overall, combined with the consistency of stuff being in the right positions.

In both situations, craft in orbits and on the surface would display as they are. If a player put a station in LKO, technically years into the future, you would see that station in LKO and be able to interact with it instead of it being a grey ghost of a future station. So you don’t have to communicate about changes that happen in the future because once something is there, it just exists. For the crafts in transit, you can hide them or show them (and showing them would probably lead to some nonsense) but once they are in their stable orbits, then they display that way and when you warp, their position along that orbit changes. As we’ve discussed before, docking with a ship that is on a different transfer window than you can lead to some issues, but I’d like it to be possible anyways, because ships in transit should be able to be interacted with.

Not only do they start at their present, but they stay in their present the whole time, and simultaneously are synchronized with everyone else. Everyone has full freedom over time warp as well. This works suprisingly well without paradoxes in most situations, and while I would have it so that even the situations with paradoxes are available, those situations aren’t interactible in the other model anyways so removing them would just be the status quo. In my solution, you would see that the base has already had fuel taken out of it, and you would be able to dock with it. Essentially, it would be as if you warped ahead those 10 minutes until after the last interaction, but this applies to everything. From my perspective, there is no reason to limit an interaction until after you have warped forwards, because it isn’t like you are going to gain gameplay from that non-interaction if you are just going to warp forwards anyways. Craft in transfer wouldn’t be interactible under the leapfrog model because the other player would have to edit its course at the end of the transfer. Bases and craft left in orbit would be interactible, assuming that no one interacted with it in the meantime (which is either irrelevant if everyone is within a year of each other or insurmountable if people are further apart) but again, those aren’t really benefits of the leapfrog system, that is just normal. Bases and unattended vessels can be interacted with under every solution, unless some anti-griefing measure stops it like in large multiplayer. The de-sync happens with the positions of crafts and planets. There won’t be a situation where someone else’s craft suddenly zooms somewhere else unless you need to synchronize with it, and at that point you are docked with it so you are going along with it. Just like in the leapfrog system, when you warp, everything warps. The only difference is that nothing is greyed out and everything can be interacted with. Once you come in contact with something that isn’t in the place it should be, like a station that is receiving solar power when you dock at night, then you warp to the point in that frame of reference where the craft was. This reduces the warp times from a few months to the lat point of interaction (assuming the (optimistic) idea that most players will be within a year or two) to a few minutes to the right point in the orbit. There isn’t any time when something disappears from an orbit except when someone actively changes the orbit, and in the leapfrog model you would just suddenly not be able to interact with that craft anyways and you wouldn’t even see where it went until you warped forwards, which to me is the same level of annoyance.

So far, we have seen no mention of robotic parts, so there is a possibility that they won’t be in the base game at launch.

Basically, the system I've proposed lets you interact with other players as they are in the present, so instead of seeing a grayed-out base that doesn't exist yet, you just see the base and you can dock to it. It is as if you warped to catch up, but without having to warp to catch up. Can you really expect that? I don't think people are going to be willing to let four active missions overshoot their targets just to catch up. Drifting apart is the default state; making things stay together requires additional effort that isn't as present in other games, and as I said above, the consequences here are that you are essentially booted out of multiplayer, not just that you are behind. I know I'm going to work on big projects with other players (that's probably all I will be doing honestly), and I'm confident that most people will make efforts to do that. We can agree to disagree that most players will be close together in the timeline, but the alternative to leapfrogging isn't necessarily turn-based gameplay or locked down time warp. In other words, Asynchronous and independent time warp aren't synonyms. It just returns to the question of the latest discussion: What is so compelling about that system that you would rather not interact with all of these future events when you could? It's not the independent time warp because there are other solutions that have that, so what is it?

So, that’s a situation that’s already been solved. The problem that I think is not solved is when the player that is catching up is already embroiled in the middle of a complex infrastructure network. In the situation where the player has nothing, they can just warp forwards and then other players can help. But if the infrequent player is on year 600 with their first interstellar mission to DebDeb and the other players are on year 1500 with full colonies on every body, warping by that many years will mess up a lot of stuff. And in that time, there’s nothing the regulars can do to change the past. So, my question remains: why have all of these grayed out things that you can’t interact with while catching up, when you can have interactible craft and bases of other players while you are catching up?

This is exactly what I meant, that the infrequent players have to catch up, and KSP makes this much, much harder to do than other games. Imagine if that lone new player had to play single player to try to catch up with the others, and since they play less frequently, they will pretty much never join the main group. It is unreasonable to expect the veteran players to play less or differently to accommodate for the people lagging behind, but the way that the leapfrog model is structured, there is really no way for veterans to even try to help infrequent players, and no way for infrequent players to actually play multiplayer while they catch up. you could compare it to an MMO where someone joining their friends has to spend dozens of hours doing solo quests while the others go even further ahead, but in KSP there isn't even an option for those players to interact at all, because they are separated by a gulf of time. So, if you are playing multiplayer KSP, you are signing onto a single player experience until you grind enough to catch up.

The issue I have is that KSP isn’t like those other games, because players can be separated by time as well as progression. If someone has almost finished their terraria playthrough and I’m not even at hard mode yet, at least I can benefit from the infrastructure and resources that the other player has set up to catch up. In KSP, that infrastructure and those resources don’t exist yet, and if they do, they can’t be interacted with. Even in the MMO example, an advanced player can carry the newbie through challenging dungeons, so there is still a little overlap where the players can play together. I think you mean speed up. The problem is that not only will some players fall behind progression-wise, but they’ll fall behind in time, and having your in-game time increase more makes it harder for others to catch up. If you land on Duna on the first available transfer window, then other players catch up to that by the first time they get to Duna. If you spend a few years exploring the Kerbin system plus Gilly and Eve, then the other players won’t be able to interact with your Duna outpost until several years later, which will take them a longer real-life time. The problem is that infrequent players have to play very slowly and frequent players have to play very fast to even get a chance at interaction and similar in game time.

I think the important things isn't the variety of activities, but more that many people want to play while being frequently synchronized (at least relatively synchronized). Still, I think there's a good amount of variety: And take note, this isn't including posts of people wanting a mostly synchronous style (which doubles it) and doesn't include the first forty pages. People want to be synchronized with other people. Specific, debatable but sure. However, I definitely don't think these situations are rare. Also, I want to point out that you didn't really answer the question that you set forth: The base assumption is that you are not interacting with these craft, and the question is, why look at a recording when you can see the real-time actions? You actually answered this in your first answer, but I'd like to correct a few things. Yes, you'd see a craft with a trajectory going nowhere, but you aren't going to be able to intercept it outside of the transfer window without a very expensive burn, so just like the planets line up while you are intercepting in the leapfrog model, the planets line up while you are intercepting in the subspace model. While players that play more slowly and skip transfer windows will be fine (because the other players probably play enough to catch up), the discrepancies become much larger and more negative when a player plays less. That player might arrive at Duna at the same transfer window as the other players (or one later, but that shouldn't hurt them), but everyone else is already colonizing Jool. Unlike the player you talked about, this one is not only coming late to the party but is also behind, which means they can't interact. At this stage it shouldn't matter too much since time warping a few thousand days won't interrupt anything important. But one that player is colonizing Jool (on-pace with the other players according to the in-game clock, or maybe a few years behind if they warped once they got to Duna), they can't catch up without messing up some new mission, and the other players are simultaneously moving way into the future, doing interstellar missions lasting decades and building up their infrastructure over centuries. If someone was at that point but was a few centuries late in-game, they could still interact with the other players since they are after the last interaction (they would lock down everyone else's bases through that though), but someone who arrives late in real-time won't be able to interact, and in the end-game, catching up by decades or centuries is infeasible. So that was the first thing, that players who just play less are really negatively impacted even if everyone stayed on pace, and then the second thing is that I don't think people will stay on pace. If you have a player who jumps on the first transfer window available and a player who skips a few, neither one of them are going to change pace. It is the responsibility of the faster player to warp to synchronize with the slower player, and call me a cynic but I don't see that happening very much. So, one transfer window at a time, the two will diverge and end up very far apart. As this relies on the previous assumption, you can see the problem I have with it, which is that meeting your friend at Minmus for a fun torch ship rover race, whatever you want, will take you two weeks and then another two hundred years if you actually want to synchronize. Prepping for a long warp is one of the activities I could see being fun for some people but not for me. This makes synchronizing time-consuming and difficult to do. You can always start a new sandbox save - but then does the leapfrog model really allow for synchronous play? If the solution is so tedious that you have to go to a separate game to get around the problem, then is it really a solution? And just because something has nothing to do with "progression" doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of it, it just means it is intrinsic motivation. If I only cared about progression in my Minecraft server and did the unrelated stuff in a separate server, then the progression server would be a pretty terrible experience, with no constructions except for ugly farms to get resources and ugly storage areas to store those resources since using them isn't really progression. I want to be able to do a base tour in KSP, and build a base with friends in KSP (not adding modules tens of years apart, actively planning and placing the modules at the same time), and use torch ship technology, actually earned, to do races, instead of doing the same thing in creative more.

K-selection: have an active kerbal alive for 1000 years (or if there is a lifespan, whatever that lifespan is)

Are they not? I haven’t seen any discrepancies between KER and stock when I set the location to be the same on both calculators, and each stage not only displays dV, but also Isp, thrust, TWR, and burn time. Click on the little stage bar at the top of each stage to expand it and see that info. As for CoM, I would like to see something that expands upon the RCS build aid mod, since that mod has helped me immensely to keep my CoM, CoT, and everything else stable, even when working with complex VTOL systems. Having information not only for individual stages but for full/average/empty stages would be amazing to have stock.

I think that a whole star system is a pretty big easter egg. Maybe if they do a huge expansion with tons of new systems they could slip in Sol as a (relatively) small thing to discover, but I think at this stage in the game, a whole fleshed-out solar system would be too big to fit in as a joke, and as you said, it won’t properly be “kerbal”

Definitely agree on the point that’s good systems allow for many types of interaction, which is why I semi consistently talked about which modes allowed or catered to which types of interaction, I just forgot to tie it into a cohesive conclusion. We can agree to disagree on the “niche” quality of syncing, I’m sure that you recognize as much as I do how many people (including me) have said that the main activity that they will do in multiplayer requires synchronizing. The point is that synchronization needs to not be annoying to do. The second thing is that while temporal separation is similar to spatial separation, why have two forms of separation instead of one? Going back to the minmus base example, if the players were only separated by space, they would see each other doing their activities even if they couldn’t reach each other, whereas if they were also separated by time, one player might not even see that the other is active in the area. Given that several systems only have multiplayer as visual interaction, and that even the subspace bubble solution goes to some lengths to give the appearance of other players doing things, even if it is just a recording, you probably also know that seeing other players doing their things is an important part of the experience. So, why would you choose to watch a recording that you can’t interact with, when you could watch real-time actions that you can’t interact with? Also remember that once you close the spatial gap, you then have to take the extra step of closing the time gap, which I would prefer not doing if it means all my craft in transit overshoot their destinations. I personally would be stuck always looking at recordings of players, even when we are driving around on the same square kilometer.

Other players’ interpretations are not stated like “The Game That Was Promised.” Speculate away, don’t make assertions though.

That’s an interesting idea! I don’t think multiplayer should be limited to that, but I think it is a good option to have. I came up with a system that did this and I think I called it “players control kerbals” or something. I’ll link it below. Let me know if it creates the same type of interaction that you are hoping for. The big thing to note there is that the system isn’t limited to only sharing craft and buildings, you can also have your own thing going, if you want that. Not going to start an argument over semantics. To make a comparable example it's like when they put a single specifically designed VR mission into a flat game and they call it a "VR Game". Technically it is, true, but is that really what you want when you buy a new VR game? A game that's 95% flat and then has a separate VR mode with a single dedicated 15 minutes "experience"? I really dislike how you are disagreeing with the ideas that don’t fit into your view of KSP multiplayer. You just claim they aren’t multiplayer. The thing is that everyone has different ideas of what they would like, and most people recognize that while they might not like another system, it is still multiplayer. Being constantly de-synced from other players appeals to me about as little as constantly hopping between interactive and non-interactive modes, but I can recognize that they are still multiplayer. Here’s a few of the ways that KSP can be multiplayer. Don’t mind that they are bad, because bad systems can in fact exist (and I don’t want a repeat of the mod discussion), just look at all of the options: - Playing through the game individually and seeing things other players have built. This one is pretty common, as it is a part of the gameplay of the subspace bubble model, the MMO model, and a few others. This is akin to MMO style gameplay where, outside of parties, you get the multiplayer experience mostly through seeing how big the player base is. - Building trade networks and infrastructure together. This is also a part of many proposed systems (including turn-based btw), and is closer to the kind of multiplayer I personally want in KSP. - Doing “short” activities together. These can be hours long, but on a star system’s time scale, are short. The turn-based system prioritizes this type of interaction, although lots of other systems allow and facilitate it to varying extents. This is also something I want, and why the solution I have never requires massive synchronizations. - Interacting on the same ship or colony together. I’ll add here since you say this isn’t the “KSP gameplay loop” that people are still playing through the game fully, they are just doing it together. Just because someone is in the driver’s seat in an FPS doesn’t mean they aren’t participating in the gameplay. There are plenty of games where multiplayer divides the responsibilities a single player would have between multiple people, and I personally think it could work well. It can also be integrated into other systems, although none have explicitly mentioned it. - Playing the game in turns and either watching other players or doing something between turns. I’ll start by saying I don’t like this idea. But for many people, that is what they are looking for, and I think I could see a way it could work. Between turns you can manage your colonies, build your ships, and check up on everything across the game, and when your transfer window is up, you can focus on flying because you have done the rest in the between time. The turn based system heavily prioritizes this, but other systems technically allow for it, except for mine, in which time is meaningless. There are definitely more ways to play multiplayer, and there are certainly good and bad ones, from a gameplay perspective. But that good and bad are mostly subjective, and saying that the ones you think are bad aren’t multiplayer is just a way out of considering them as possibilities.

You fool, this clearly indicates that a life support system comprising of five resources is going to be in place in KSP 2. How could you miss this entirely obvious conclusion... Players are clearly going to need to manage Sunlight, Neopets, Air time, Combos, Kerbal-life-support-resource-work-in-progress, and Space. And the exclamation point is really an upside-down "I" that stands for Imagination. Truly, the life-support system in KSP 2 will be revolutionary, and I don't see any other way the LS resource system could be structured. (/s in case of confusion)

I think that the color and reflectivity can definitely make Vall icy, but as I mentioned above, I'm not too sure about the way the planet is formed. I'm not a geologist, and certainly not an exo-geologist, so I don't know, icy moons could probably still look like that.

I still don’t see how so many craters could be present, unless the Jool system “recently” went though a major shake-up. Some of the big ones look like they are in the process of being filled in, but aside from the backside of the planet, it looks like Vall hasn’t had much time to turn those into basins, or is being actively pelted by large asteroids on that side. I still think an old-age supervolcanic ice moon should be mostly flat with some big cryovolcano ranges, but all of these celestial bodies got cleared by a planetary scientist, and I guess they might be going for a young moon/system? I don’t know enough to make correct statements, so ignore this if you want.

This is the KSP 2 forums, and the game hasn’t come out yet. In KSP 2, it is confirmed that you will be able to visit other stars. KSP 1 development has ended, so no more suggestions are being taken, but if you go to the KSP 1 suggestions page, you will be able to ask for it there.

I'm a big fan of exploring environments in fluids (liquids and gasses mostly), and I think it will be almost as big as surface exploration in later space travel (exploring both Venus and Jupiter will almost certainly be done this way), so I hope that by the end of the life cycle of the game, some attention is brought to underwater environments so that they are at least comparable in interest to above-water environments. Just adding scatter and some interesting terrain and making an incentive to go there would be enough for me.

Also, I’d be pretty happy to get a release date, regardless of whatever else is going on. The game is going to be the same quality no matter the marketing, and a release date would skyrocket my hype levels personally.

Isn't that literally every single game though? There's some information that you get before the release date, there's some you get after the release date, and there's a point in time where the next piece of information is the release date. Even if they put it at the end of the next Feature Video, there will be a moment after the content where the release date is the next piece of information, before anything else. I don't see how you could possibly have it otherwise, without breaking some law of reality.

I’m really not fixated on the way the surface looks. Ice by default isn’t necessarily blue, and metal isn’t necessarily gray, and there’s a hundred other factors that can affect it, so that image could definitely be ice. Look for anywhere where I even suggest that it couldn’t, I’d appreciate the help with correcting that mistake. The reason why I suggested metal is because, going off of the possibility it might be Tylo, I would be happy with seeing Tylo become a (literal?) gold mine for metal resources instead of the world’s largest gravel patch. It would fit thematically, it would fit gameplay, and I’m not opposed to the devs changing the surfaces of bodies. If it is indeed Vall on the other hand, then as I said above, I am not opposed to it, but I think there is a possibility it isn’t Vall, seeing as they have changed the topology to suggest that it is a different type of planet. If you have big craters, then the ice hasn’t ever melted to form basins from those craters, which seems improbable to me. I’d expect Vall to have basins and not craters. The image shown doesn’t fit my idea of Vall (unless Vall is metal and not ice) and your idea of Tylo (unless… wait, why can’t a rainbow-metal planet look grey from space? Wasn’t your whole thing about different conditions affecting surfaces?)

I feel like there is a huge misunderstanding here. Those two images are of the same moon, and I don’t think anyone is questioning that. What I’m saying is that it is a departure from the topography of this moon from the same video: At least one of those moons is Vall, and the newer one looks very similar to another moon that doesn’t really resemble Vall in terms of terrain (not talking about color/reflectivity/lighting here).

I think that what @Strawberry is saying is that the bottom picture is Tylo, which may have been redesigned into a metallic moon, in the style of Psyche (which I think would be really cool). I will admit that the topography of Vall, with its frozen basins separated by mountains, doesn’t look very similar to this new image, with large craters and rough terrain in between. Though I seriously doubt there was a moon mix-up, so this is very likely the new look of Vall.