adding multiplayer

[Nightshift83]

10 minutes ago, razark said:

Success in one business does not automatically translate into success in another.  Just because a company had a good history of marketing, you can't expect them to have success with, for example, writing video games.

 

(Of course, there's nothing to say a company can't be successful in a different industry than they have previously worked in.)

Last reply on this one, what other company could have a more broaden experience in multimedia than an advert company ? (don't get me wrong I usually hate these guys and their respective working field :))

 

And yes why can't they be successful ? I mean they brought us KSP.. So what can you expect from a gaming company - EA - Ubisoft - SEGA (everything from RomeII up to Attila in their case) these days??????

 

or guys like P.Molineux..Sid Meier..?? Hell, if Heinz-Ketchup throws out a good video game I wouldn'nt mind (might be bad example due to political implications)

[razark]

2 minutes ago, Nightshift83 said:

Last reply on this one, what other company could have a more broaden experience in multimedia than an advert company ?

A successful video game involves a lot more than just multimedia work, and a lot of that experience is not going to be found in both advertising and game development.  Multimedia work?  Sure.  But what about user interface design?

 

2 minutes ago, Nightshift83 said:

And yes why can't they be successful ? I mean they brought us KSP.. So what can you expect from a gaming company - EA - Ubisoft - SEGA (everything from RomeII up to Attila in their case) these days??????

Would you expect someone to hire EA or Ubisoft to develop advertisements?  When your dog is sick, do you take it to a veterinarian or a bricklayer?  If you want a company to develop a new airliner for you, would you call Boeing or a plumber?

[Nightshift83]

Awe c'mon video game industry has changed so much these days. And for your comparison: I trust a vetenerian to tell me if my finger might be broken or not he does'nt even have to be specialized in monkeys.

EA and Ubisoft developing advertisements ? What do think made them so successfull ? I mean just look at 'Watchdogs' or 'Silent Hunter V' compared to the expectations and what was delivered even the endproduct was merely and advertisement.

But seriously I don't want to get this thread off-topic.

Can't we agree on that SQUAD that seemingly derived from an ad-company had delivered one of the best, unique games in the last years ?

What other agrument should one need ??

(Seriously I'm not going to talk to you anymore if you don't bow before my clever argumentation now!)

[razark]

15 minutes ago, Nightshift83 said:

Can't we agree on that SQUAD that seemingly derived from an ad-company had delivered one of the best, unique games in the last years ?

I never said I thought Squad couldn't or hadn't done so.  I was just pointing out why people might have issues with a marketing company attempting to break into the video game industry.  Frankly, Squad shows exactly how well it can be done.

But yes, this is rather off-topic.

[Nightshift83]

Apology accepted

Edited February 24, 2016 by Nightshift83
just kidding

[Zer0Winds]

Uh... Question... How would Multiplayer work? This game requires you to time warp, which if one person was to time warp, how would it affect everyone else? And would people be queued to launch? Or are there multiple space centers? I just don't see multiplayer working in this game... I saw sal say it's under development, but I say this anyway; Do we NEED multiplayer? There are plenty of space simulation multiplayer games (Space Engineers is an example, though I may be wrong, I've mostly just heard about the game) and this one just doesn't seem to work well with it. Time warping would be weird since it affects the Kerbol System, making celestial bodies move faster, and ships and stations orbit faster. I suppose if it was limited to Kerbin, but then it wouldn't be Kerbal SPACE Program. Sure it would be cool to be flying planes into each other, or working together on a massive Mun Base, but... I just can't see it working. I'm sorry, but it's just not something I can see in KSP.

[Zer0Winds]

On 12/18/2015 at 9:54 PM, DrMarlboro said:

I just don't see how multiplayer would work in this game without ruining it.

What is there to do in multiplayer? Build a station, but then how do you decided who pilots the station? How does building that station benefit anyone? How do we get to that station without time warp in a decent amount of time? 

But what else is there to do together? Well.. nothing except dogfighting because anything on Kerbin can pretty much be done in real time. 

Ksp isn't like survival games, or rts games, or shooters. In survival games you can both work on a base, gather resources, defend that base from ai and other players, and in rts you can play against each other or work towards a common victory condition, and I don't think I need to explain shooters. The point is, since rocket and plane building is very much a one person job, there really is no way to have multiplayer that isn't combat oriented. Which aparently is all some people want anyway, but it doesn't fit ksp very well. 

The only feasible multiplayer I could think of would be the space race me and my friends do. But that would only require integrated tracking of other clients, since we don't actually have to be in the same game. 

Yeah I was pretty much thinking the same thing when I said what I said. Sorry, I didn't read into it after seeing most people saying how much of a good idea it was.

[pandaman]

As I said before multi player is not really my thing personally, but IF they get it to work in a way they are happy with then I see no problem with it, as long as I can still play solo offline. 

I can see MP working and being great fun for relatively small groups playing co-op missions or going to war with each other.  I really don't envision a MMO type situation with hundreds of players, and if it can be done then thats impressive and good luck to them, I just doubt I will join in.

[Po0ka]

Me and my friends are patiently waiting for the multiplayer feature to come out, doing war is only one of the many possibilities offered by such feature.
We tried the multiplayer mods out there and we kept getting trouble related to either time warp, ship duplicating, random explosions, and more.
If someone does not want multiplayer, so be it, he can still play in single player.

Also, griefing is most likely to happen when playing with strangers, just don't play on publicly announced servers and there should be no problem.

[Tonyiih]

Hi everyone,

 

I know this is a subject that has been discussed alot over the last years, but I wonder why there isn't a multiplayer/co-op feature yet in this game.

 

I'm talking about a multiplayer/co-op/lan connection mode where you can play with friends and do the career mode together. Maybe it would be a good idea to have two or more KSP centers placed on Kerbin so you and you're friends each has its own KSP center. I really like to play this game with a good friend without lag, on a real-time basis. I'd like to track his progress, his vessels and what he is doing in real-time in the same game as I am playing in. This way we can create big space stations and do missions together.

 

I am wondering if the developers are still thinking to add these features to the game, because it would add alot of dynamic to the game.

 

The multiplayer mod for KSP is pretty awesome too and works a little bit with the features I just wrote, but it just is not perfect. If someone can create a mod like this, it would be kind of easy for the developers to create a good and stable multiplayer/co-op feature for the game I think.

 

How do you guys think about this?

 

Kind regards,

 

Anthonie

Edited May 9, 2016 by Tonyiih

[Redneck]

I just hope that if multiplayer is implemented that we can host our own server. I hope squad doesn't use a central server setup with a possible pay-to-play idea like say wow. And also why start over with development? Why not just improve and refine DMP? 

[sal_vager]

DMP isn't quite enough, we'd want better than that, and I'm 100% in favour of player hosted games including LAN support.

[Fred Cop]

Personally, I can see an issue with Multiplayer; "Mistake Tolerance" (Might not be the best way to describe it)

 

In KSP's current singleplayer stage, when you make mistakes or your rocket and planes fall apart, it can be funny and teaches us about new things we should be aware about when making crafts, such as structure, fuel flow, etc. And of course if the vessel isn't perfect on launch, you can always revert back. It becomes an entertaining game of trial and error.

 

...In multiplayer, this may become a handicap. Imagine you are playing multiplayer with your friends and you decide to make a space station, or a mothership, or anything that requires more than one launch to fly and assemble. You all make it to High Kerbin Orbit, and it turns out a friend's component of the station/base/ship is faulty, or their rocket runs out of fuel.

You'd have to wait many, many minutes for your friend to change the rocket or station/base/ship segment, fly it out of Kerbin's atmosphere, and spend many more trying to get as close to the final assembly. And I think you'd lose interest before they can orbit Kerbin, meaning you'd either leave the station/base/ship to do other things for fun or give up on multiplayer entirely. It becomes a game of "prove that twiddling your thumbs for long periods of time is exciting".

 

 

But other than that, I can't help but think about burning Kerbals via atmospheric re-entry with a couple of friends.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Fred Cop

[mattinoz]

8 hours ago, Fred Cop said:

In KSP's current singleplayer stage, when you make mistakes or your rocket and planes fall apart, it can be funny and teaches us about new things we should be aware about when making crafts, such as structure, fuel flow, etc. And of course if the vessel isn't perfect on launch, you can always revert back. It becomes an entertaining game of trial and error.

If trial and error is fun in single player why would it suddenly be not fun in multi-player?

To me the fun of multi-player would be opening up new trials to make errors in. Either you're competitive then avoiding errors is about bragging rights. Co-operative then you as a team use each other skills to trial things you can't do on your own and use your strengths to avoid errors.

To me in KSP time is rarely critical enough that if a couple of missed launches are going to stop you. That's all tied in to the challenge the team sets however there is many bodies in system that 100dV will buy you a day or two of catch up in the transfer window.

To me one-player causing others to be bored is always going to be a social issue that is very hard for game mechanics to solve. 

[PlutoPlanet126]

KSP Multiplayer would be so cool!

[jwenting]

KSP Online, now with Microtransactions.

Terrier engines, special discount today: 10 for $4.99!!!

THAT is the future you're getting with multiplayer. Thanks but no thanks.

[mattinoz]

3 hours ago, jwenting said:

KSP Online, now with Microtransactions.

Terrier engines, special discount today: 10 for $4.99!!!

THAT is the future you're getting with multiplayer. Thanks but no thanks.

Why would multi-player lead to #microTransactionAreEvil?

sure it needs a server but we could host them ourselves or if of value to how we are playing or the group we playing with we might rent a cloud instance to be the server. To me that is just user pays not competitor pays like micro transactions. 

[Alshain]

13 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Why would multi-player lead to #microTransactionAreEvil?

sure it needs a server but we could host them ourselves or if of value to how we are playing or the group we playing with we might rent a cloud instance to be the server. To me that is just user pays not competitor pays like micro transactions. 

I think he is more referencing the Minecraft paradigm than a micro-transaction game format (even though he called it microtransactions).  However, it's a silly comparison.  Just because some servers choose to do that to pay for the server cost doesn't mean there aren't thousands of other people hosting private servers for their friends.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Alshain

[jwenting]

On ‎5‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 1:39 AM, mattinoz said:

Why would multi-player lead to #microTransactionAreEvil?

sure it needs a server but we could host them ourselves or if of value to how we are playing or the group we playing with we might rent a cloud instance to be the server. To me that is just user pays not competitor pays like micro transactions. 

Someone has to pay for the servers. Which means either an item mall, in game purchases (which boils down to the same thing), or a subscription fee.

And the trend in online gaming has for over a decade been to move towards item malls and in game purchases because it's both more profitable and leads to less opposition from the player base (many of whom will happily spend hundreds of dollars a week in an item mall but complain at having to pay a $10 a month subscription fee, complaining the latter is way too much).

[AlamoVampire]

why is it people still want multiplayer? there are far too many things that can go wrong, too many hurdles <part counts, mods, trolls, etc> to be accounted for for this to be viable in a game, that I have said before, and shall say again: KSP does not now, nor has it EVER lent itself to anything more than a single player game. 

[Pthigrivi]

I think its challenging, but it could be fun. I know several friends with whom I'd love to do a cooperative build with. Just seeing other people's creations and collaborations interacting would be a blast. 

[Alshain]

13 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

why is it people still want multiplayer? there are far too many things that can go wrong, too many hurdles <part counts, mods, trolls, etc> to be accounted for for this to be viable in a game, that I have said before, and shall say again: KSP does not now, nor has it EVER lent itself to anything more than a single player game. 

For the same reasons we always wanted multiplayer.  The reasons haven't changed just because you don't want multiplayer.  If you don't want multiplayer, then when it gets here... don't play it.  It's really that simple.  It just simply won't affect you.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Alshain

[AlamoVampire]

@Alshain Lack of imagination? It's the imagination of HOW IT WILL GO WRONG that makes me say its bad.

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Alshain Lack of imagination? It's the imagination of HOW IT WILL GO WRONG that makes me say its bad.

Like I said, then don't play it.  This is entirely a feature that doesn't affect you if you don't use it.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Alshain

[AlamoVampire]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Like I said, then don't play it.  This is entirely a feature that doesn't affect you if you don't use it.

I agree right up until the inevitable and entirely unavoidable happens after they add a thing not needed: single player content development and polish suffer because resources forcibly shift to the not needed thing.