adding multiplayer

[Jatwaa]

3 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

Sir, real life is real life... NASA isn't multi player, its how things as complicated as they do actually are... no one person can do what NASA does.... seriously... you offer that as an example as to what multi player means? Seriously? Are you suggesting NASA is a multi player game?

I reality, its a co-operative venture.... that doesn't make it "multi player" in the sense we are discussing. Come on.... give up on it.

And I was playing multi player games... well ... one... long before there was a 'multi player' option in any game.... in actual fact, it was an ultra slow sub hunter game hooked up with two wires between two ZX QL's.... anyhow... I digress...

...I still make the point that KSP will not be KSP with multi player added.... for the multi player version, note... 'version".... they will probably strip some features (warp included) from the game and call it "KSP UNLEASHED" .... meaning its KSP but definitely not the KSP we are talking about.... 

I would hope not.  All I would want is the same game. Just with freinds. Problem is so many game recreate themselves to do this. Some just add in the ability for others to join in. We don't need another game type, just the ability to add freinds. Similar to Minecraft and it's drop in and out with option to use a dedicted server. 7 Days to Die is another good example. Freinds connect play then leave. You login and...hey he or she fixed the door...sweet

8 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I really don't think it's practical to remove warp altogether from multiplayer, that would mean you wouldn't even be able to go to the Mun in a reasonable length play session, and interplanetary stuff would be right out. There's no perfect answer for multiplayer timewarp (essentially any solution involves either waiting or sync issues), but that doesn't mean that no timewarp is better. DMP's approach is likely the least bad compromise.

Yeah that is a trouble point. I lean to having it as a rule set. The admins hosting can decide if they want to allow it or not and via what rule set. All or none, none, vote and highest wins. So on

[KSP Bros KS]

I would want something like minecraft where there is an option for LAN or online server feature. And with making a server, a choice to make it with mission control/pilots with the players as the kerbals or plain as it is with DMP.

[Alshain]

7 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

Sir, real life is real life... NASA isn't multi player, its how things as complicated as they do actually are... no one person can do what NASA does.... seriously... you offer that as an example as to what multi player means? Seriously? Are you suggesting NASA is a multi player game?

As has been discussed in this thread and others, yes.  A "mission control" style game where multiple players play various positions in NASA could be one style of multiplayer.  You were the one that said you wanted realisitc, now you complain that I agree?

 

7 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

And I was playing multi player games... well ... one... long before there was a 'multi player' option in any game.... in actual fact, it was an ultra slow sub hunter game hooked up with two wires between two ZX QL's.... anyhow... I digress...
 

Are you sure about that?  The QL wasn't even released when I was playing multiplayer games.  If you haven't played a MUD, you haven't really experienced multiplayer

 

Why do you care?  If you don't want multiplayer, then when it comes don't play it.  It won't affect you at all, so why are you in this thread?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Alshain

[tater]

My old roommate met his wife on the Pern MUD, lol.

I was never a MUD person, the closest I got to multiplayer way, way back was encountering ghosts on netback  .

I could see playing a LAN version to do docking, etc with my kids. I really have no interest in the online versions posited along the lines of DMP, in fact less than no interest to the extent it take resources away from adding things that are actually worthwhile (if the staff working on it don't overlap, then I don't care).

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

I could see playing a LAN version to do docking, etc with my kids. I really have no interest in the online versions posited along the lines of DMP, in fact less than no interest to the extent it take resources away from adding things that are actually worthwhile (if the staff working on it don't overlap, then I don't care).

There is no difference in resources.  I'm not sure where this idea that LAN and online are two different things came from, as you aren't the first to mention it.  The connection is the same, except one doesn't open up outside your local network.  From a coding perspective if you have coded a LAN option then you are nearly done with online play, all you need is the menu interface to set it up.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Alshain

[tater]

Just now, Alshain said:

There is no difference in resources.  I'm not sure where this idea that LAN and online are two different things came from.  The connection is the same, except one doesn't open up outside your local network.  From a coding perspective if you have coded a LAN option then you are nearly done with online play, all you need is the menu interface to set it up.

I understand this. Again, I don't care about having coders that would not otherwise be fixing/improving stuff that actually needs fixing or improving working on whatever. If it were to take away from that, I think it would be a waste of effort. If it's not, then I have no problem. LAN and online are different in a sense, since I think that every single object in the game should be under exactly the same time compression at all times, no exceptions. In a local setup, that makes sense. Online ideas all have some sort of instancing, right? If there is any warp difference between any 2 players, then I'm not interested. Games that require time compression and MM online are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

[Alshain]

24 minutes ago, tater said:

I understand this. Again, I don't care about having coders that would not otherwise be fixing/improving stuff that actually needs fixing or improving working on whatever. If it were to take away from that, I think it would be a waste of effort. If it's not, then I have no problem. LAN and online are different in a sense, since I think that every single object in the game should be under exactly the same time compression at all times, no exceptions. In a local setup, that makes sense. Online ideas all have some sort of instancing, right? If there is any warp difference between any 2 players, then I'm not interested. Games that require time compression and MM online are mutually exclusive as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

Presumably time instancing would be a decision of the server administrator.  If it's customization enough, then it should be out of Squad's hands, let the server owner decide.  Then it falls down to your decision as a non-administrative player of whether you want to be on that server or not.

Not all of the ideas have time instancing.  There are several gameplay styles proposed in this thread and I think several modes of play would be nice to have.  One of the suggested methods is a "mission control" style where everyone "flies" the same ship, where different aspects are locked out from other players.  The idea is to have multiple players with a set "task" to accomplish the mission and they have to work in concert to succeed.  (Have you seen any YouTubers/Streamers play "Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes", this would be like a more extreme version of that!)

Just spitballing here, one player could be the Flight Director, he makes the calls and can speak to everyone except the crew, but has no control.  One player is CapCom, he has to relay messages to the crew.  The crew can be one or more players.  Then there is the guy that watches the rocket stats (heat, electricity, fuel, etc.)  He has to communicate to the flight director, especially if something goes wrong!  There there is the guy that plans the manuever nodes (a little less realistic on that position, but it's a game). And so on and so forth....  depending on the number of players available, some of these could be combined.  This would actually work better online through a build-in voice chat if possible, because if you are in the same room then it breaks the relationship between CapCom, i.e. anything the ground control says can be heard by the crew.  Worst case scenario, you only have 2 players in which case one is the astronaut and the other is the entire ground control team and it won't matter so much.  It would be more fun with more players.

 

Regarding the developers, I'm fairly certain they have had one guy working on it for some time now.  I don't think that affects the developers working on the game, as far as I understood.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Alshain

[Jatwaa]

Spitballing a bit more... If players need warp, instance them so that they are warping and get a collision warning if their destination will be populated on arrival. Kick them from warp (all this optional of course) x minutes prior impact if no actions are taken. I would like to be on a Kerbal basis. So i am in control of one Kerbal. But there would be alot of code work for that. I don't want them to stop progress on the main game so anything that prevents that I am for while they chase Lan, Mp, co op

[kiwi1960]

11 hours ago, Alshain said:

Are you sure about that?  The QL wasn't even released when I was playing multiplayer games.  If you haven't played a MUD, you haven't really experienced multiplayer

Why do you care?  If you don't want multiplayer, then when it comes don't play it.  It won't affect you at all, so why are you in this thread?

1) The QL was released before the internet came along, and before there was even a 10mbit network card. (QL was released in 1984)

2) Who said I didn't want multi player???? Yes, I am not in favour of it NOW... but later when the bugs in the single player game are fixed, and the game becomes more refined. As it stands now, KSP is a single player game due to the fact that its more suited to that.... but thanks to mods... which has nothing to do with Squad, you want MP now... I do not...

So we agree to disagree....

Actually.... it would be more correct to say I neither want, nor do not want it... I'm exactly down the middle, but arguing reality.... the KSP game we all love is here now and .... well, it needs more love... I'd rather have a single player KSP right now ... refined.... than a MP version that will create all kinds of bugs to the game.... look at the fiasco that the console version created...

[snip]

Edited August 6, 2016 by Vanamonde
Don't take things personally, please.

[Jatwaa]

7 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

1) The QL was released before the internet came along, and before there was even a 10mbit network card. (QL was released in 1984)

2) Who said I didn't want multi player???? Yes, I am not in favour of it NOW... but later when the bugs in the single player game are fixed, and the game becomes more refined. As it stands now, KSP is a single player game due to the fact that its more suited to that.... but thanks to mods... which has nothing to do with Squad, you want MP now... I do not...

So we agree to disagree....

Actually.... it would be more correct to say I neither want, nor do not want it... I'm exactly down the middle, but arguing reality.... the KSP game we all love is here now and .... well, it needs more love... I'd rather have a single player KSP right now ... refined.... than a MP version that will create all kinds of bugs to the game.... look at the fiasco that the console version created....

We are family!...well gaming nerd family. I get dibs on being the crazy uncle. 

I am all for getting stable then dropping in an MP option. Or they could bring in a person only focused on MP. They may have...I dunno. But I take ANYTHING I say as an "after the bugs are mostly gone and wheels are fixed" thing

[Alshain]

It just confuses me that many people only wish to discuss not putting multiplayer in the game rather than discussing the possibilities of multiplayer.  You say you might want multiplayer in the future but that is what this thread is about, the future.  We are discussing the possibilities of Multiplayer.  You say you might want Multiplayer but earlier you said KSP isn't KSP with multiplayer.  The two statements are exclusive.  I would much rather discuss possible implementations than this silly "should it or should it not be in the game". I don't have to even convince Squad, they are already convinced... which makes the discussion of not adding multiplayer even more silly.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Alshain

[The_Rocketeer]

[snip]

I tried KMP and later DMP with my KSP-playing friends, and frankly we found it kind of weak. We had more fun hooking up TS and just doing our own things. Actual in-game interaction was mostly dangerous and often dreadfully out of sync. In fact, I think syncing issues are the single biggest problem for KSP MP - gameplay style and options are really secondary. NASA telemetry-style play neatly sidesteps this, because syncing/signal disruption/delay is part of the immersion, but for folks who imagine an Armageddon-style coop mission or an orbital or interplanetary war, that's another matter entirely.

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by Vanamonde
Stay on-topic, please.

[AlamoVampire]

15 hours ago, TheCanadianVendingMachine said:

Why do you care about MP being added to KSP if it doesn't affect you at all? Give 1 reason

Damage to singleplayer content. Citation: Call of Duty pre multiplayer age versus current CoD games. If a AAA design house let what was once an outstanding single player game devolve to what CoDs singleplayer is now thanks to the influence of multiplayer, KSPs single player and any chance of career mode being or living up to the potential it has will evaporate. Squad is not big enough to do both.

[tater]

My negativity assumes that someone who has a job description that is less than "100% MP coding" might spend any of their time fixing stuff that MP breaks. Since I almost certainly won't do any MP, if the non-MP devs spend even 1% of their time on MP related issues, I'm 1% behind where I would have been.

[AlamoVampire]

@Columbia development costs money. that. simple. If a Triple A studio with unlimited funds when compared to a TINY INDIE dev house like Squad cannot support a quality Single Player Campaign AND a "quality" multiplayer regime, you cannot logically expect a TINY INDIE dev house with extremely limited staff and even more extremely limited funds to be able to. It just is NOT possible. I hate to say it, but, given the consistent DOWNTURN in quality this game has seen because of factors we the end users are frankly only able to speculate on <such as out side companies pushing squad to release versions faster, thus causing major bugs. OR my favorite: going from YEARS of ALPHA stage work to a SINGLE BETA to a "FULL" release that again, is buggy>, you honestly think that they can handle giving us content on the single player side of things that is worth something? Right now, with them working ONLY on a single player platform, career mode, the supposed CAMPAIGN <if we are looking to draw parallels here> is worse off than even CoDs forgettable single player campaigns or even Battlefield 3 and 4's unremarkable campaigns, and do not forget, that those titles are by TRIPLE A studios that are TITANS in this industry, with multi MILLION dollar, bordering on feature length MOVIE type budgets, you think Squad can even come close to pulling this off? No, they cant. Sorry. 

The ONLY way they can even CONSIDER multiplayer is to completely SHELVE and FORGET single player and redirect all efforts there. The person power and financial power just isnt there to do both. Then on top of that, if you want multiplayer to be a truly viable thing, some things will NEED to be cut away. Time Warp, Mods, Quick Saves and Quick Loads will ALL have to go. Add in the fact that they are giving you, me and everyone who has been here and paid our way in, or been here long enough to have gotten this when it was free, updates at NO COST, its going to turn into a house of cards. Also, given our player base, how many servers will it take to even TRY to cover bases in terms of <IF YOU WANT MODS> having servers that are configured to accept every single possible combination and reject every single combination of mods out there? Where is the money going to come from? Not me, not you, not anyone as I said who has been here long enough or already paid. Will they suddenly require a subscription fee? Or micro transactions to allow you to use your mods? Now, factor in this: how much power does a server use? How much does it cost to maintain the hardware alone for the servers? The software? Updates are not free, it takes person time to write the code, to bug check, to distribute and install. 

Now, factor this in. The game, is in relatively WORSE condition than I have ever seen it, and ive been here since 2 days AFTER version 0.21 launched. Cargo bays render anything attached to them externally inert after the doors move. Landing legs explode when you touch them with a kerbal. The kraken seems to have been awoken again, as reports of it are on the uptick. NONE of this, save the all mighty kraken were things before "launch" and you STILL think multiplayer is a wise idea? No, this game needs way way way way way way way way way way too much work before its even feasible to consider it, let alone pour time into it while so many other major things need to be done first.

MAYBE in 10 years we can revisit this if we are lucky.

[razark]

30 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

If they ever decide to have a vote on MP in KSP, I shall be voting NO

Why would they have a vote on something they have already decided to add?

Are they going to vote on spaceplane parts, too?  Can we vote on EVA?

 

No one is going to get everything they want out of this game.  There will be things added that you dislike, and there will be things you like that won't be added.

Sit back and enjoy the ride, and get what fun you can out of the game.

[AlamoVampire]

@Alshain I am fearful of it precisely BECAUSE of CoD. Back before we had the internet as we know it TODAY, widely and easy to access with petabytes of info going hither and yawn across the planet each and every day, back when AOL was the titan, we had the early Call of Duty games with stellar and I mean STELLAR single player campaigns that made you fall in LOVE with that franchise. I was a CoD fan back the day, when it was taking place in WW2, but, the moment the fans started clamoring for multiplayer and it became easier to do that multiplayer things began to slip on the single player side, then one day, it was all: Screw it, this is multiplayer with single player as the after thought. The same I am told was the story of the Battlefield franchise. I am exceedingly fearful of a game such as KSP with the raw potential it has locked in its DNA taking that route. I am thus afraid of it because if a Triple A design house that had a stellar game allowed it to sink into the meme bog that it is now, what chance does KSP have? While, yes, SOME indie dev studios or that one guy got lucky and pulled it off, that does not mean Squad will be able to. I say this because, lets be frank and honest here. They spent how many years in Alpha/Early Access? Then how long was Beta? A. Single. VERSION, lasting a few MONTHS. Then we got a poorly done, bug ridden mess called 1.0. While, I freely admit that version was far more polished than 1.1.0 and its absurdly fast .1, .2 and .3 "fixes", things have gone down hill. Look, please understand me on this, when massive bugs slip through because they are not going slow enough because out side forces are <if rumors are true, so, heres a pinch of salt to go with what I am about to say> rushing them, do you honestly, and I mean this sincerely do you HONESTLY think that multiplayer is a good idea? Let alone the additional costs in electricity, hardware, software, dev  time, dev team members that will need to be hired, and so on and so forth. I honestly see this turning into a move that destroys something that has soo much potential. I would LOVE to be wrong, heck, I will make a THREAD with a mile long soliloquy on how wrong I was if I am wrong if it doesnt collapse in on itself. BUT, this is something that should not be considered until Unity and KSP are working as flawlessly as can be. That means all bugs that CAN be fixed are fixed. All things <single player content mind you> that have been promised, are delivered and working. IF lucky, this is 10 years from now. IF lucky. Time will see. But, I am done. My point has been made many times over. I publicly announce for all to see: I, Alamovampire, take my leave from this thread. 

[Vanamonde]

A number of posts have been edited or removed from this thread because they both went off-topic (the inception date of the internet?) and had turned personal. Please don't attack each other over differing opinions. 

Also, it's somewhat moot to debate whether multiplayer should or shouldn't be in the game, since Squad has announced that it will be. This has been a planned feature for quite some time. 

[Jatwaa]

7 minutes ago, Vanamonde said:

A number of posts have been edited or removed from this thread because they both went off-topic (the inception date of the internet?) and had turned personal. Please don't attack each other over differing opinions. 

Also, it's somewhat moot to debate whether multiplayer should or shouldn't be in the game, since Squad has announced that it will be. This has been a planned feature for quite some time. 

Aye, we may be of differing opinions, but we should always respect the other view.  COD is a worst case scenario. Minecraft the best case scenario. I have confidence in Squad. They make things happen. I continue to have faith in them to be able to deliver as they say. Time is on their side. I doubt it would take 10 years though. MP code is more simple than it used to be. An Indie Jam pushes out dozens of such. I am sure that Squad has the means and the methods, but it's is not the time yet. I would be fine discussing the complications and ideas of how to overcome them, modes and rule sets for hosting admins. 

[Alshain]

@AlamoVampire  I sorry to say I don't understand your fear based on one single game, when I posted several companies that added multiplayer their game/franchise without abandoning single player.  Games begin to decline for multiple reasons, unfortunately that's how things go, but that doesn't mean KSP will.

I don't know what to tell you except that if we didn't do things because of the fear of the unknown, KSP wouldn't exist today.  Harvester took a bold step and created a game, but more than that if we always took action based on our fear of the unknown we would have never landed on the moon, so Harvester wouldn't have had content to base his game on anyway.  I'm not sure if that is what you would call irony or not?

Edited August 6, 2016 by Alshain

[Guest]

I was going to make a broadside against a multiplayer paradigm for KSP, but I can tell from AlamoVampire's post it will fall on deaf ears. Suffice to say that I play KSP solely for the sandbox aspect. No budget, no limits, NASA's dream. I don't want to share, cooperate, coordinate, etc when it comes to what I wish to do with my space programme. Keep KSP single player. At the worst, make whatever kludge of a multiplayer scenario that's arrived at optional. Make it mandatory, and I walk.

This is my position and my opinion. I honestly don't care what anyone has to say about it one way or another. If you agree, thanks. If you don't, knock yourself out. You will never change my mind. Just keep in mind you're shouting into the wind if you try.

[pandaman]

Currently stock KSP is a purely single player game, that's what it is designed to be, and multiplayer capability is to be enabled at some point.

 I can understand the concerns that once multi player becomes 'a thing' that it will start to 'evolve' away from the single player focus out of the necessity/desire to make it a better multi player experience.  And I think that's what @kiwi1960 was expressing, if it does that then yes, KSP as we know it will not be the same.

That is of course a possibility that I personally don't want to happen either, but I think it is equally (if not more) possible that because of the very real strengths and nature of single player KSP that it will still remain the 'standard' way to play, with multiplayer simply offering different gameplay options, opportunities and experiences.

Multiplayer does open up a host of new possibilities for those that want them, so in that respect it should be a welcome addition to what we have already, as long as it doesn't compromise the single player game in the process then it can only be a good thing.

[kiwi1960]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

@AlamoVampire  I sorry to say I don't understand your fear based on one single game, when I posted several companies that added multiplayer their game/franchise without abandoning single player.  Games begin to decline for multiple reasons, unfortunately that's how things go, but that doesn't mean KSP will.

I don't know what to tell you except that if we didn't do things because of the fear of the unknown, KSP wouldn't exist today.  Harvester took a bold step and created a game, but more than that if we always took action based on our fear of the unknown we would have never landed on the moon, so Harvester wouldn't have had content to base his game on anyway.  I'm not sure if that is what you would call irony or not?

If Harvester had wanted KSP to be MP, it would have been from day one. I hope to God I don't have to report this thread again, so lets keep it on track.

I never said MP wouldn't happen.... I'm saying sort the game out first, THEN add MP... whether that is after 1.2 is released, or WHEN 1.2 is released... it matters not. many things need to be sorted out before ..... (to flatter you) "enhancements" ....are made to the game. If its done now before all the problems are fixed, then all you are doing is ensuring the number of bugs increases... with a similar increase in complaints. I'm betting that when/if MP is released.... people like you won;t be happy... you will, of course, want more....

...but mainly the problems in KSP is why it hasn't happened before.... in if it takes another 12 months before you get your dream... then 12 months it will be. The bugs, problems and extra features promised and planned for KSP single player should come first. Now, lets see if you can keep this discussion on track.....

I just hope you can accept that single player SHOULD come first, besides, its to your benefit.

Edited August 6, 2016 by kiwi1960

[Jatwaa]

6 hours ago, Jack Wolfe said:

I was going to make a broadside against a multiplayer paradigm for KSP, but I can tell from AlamoVampire's post it will fall on deaf ears. Suffice to say that I play KSP solely for the sandbox aspect. No budget, no limits, NASA's dream. I don't want to share, cooperate, coordinate, etc when it comes to what I wish to do with my space programme. Keep KSP single player. At the worst, make whatever kludge of a multiplayer scenario that's arrived at optional. Make it mandatory, and I walk.

This is my position and my opinion. I honestly don't care what anyone has to say about it one way or another. If you agree, thanks. If you don't, knock yourself out. You will never change my mind. Just keep in mind you're shouting into the wind if you try.

As much as I am for MP, I am NOT for mandatory MP. I just can't see myself being forced to MP. That is what MMOs are for. I too play sandbox 90% of the time. I am not looking for scenarios much, just having another user playing in game. They should never drop the SP option. I highly doubt that was their intention.

[polytechnique]

14 minutes ago, Jatwaa said:

As much as I am for MP, I am NOT for mandatory MP. I just can't see myself being forced to MP. That is what MMOs are for. I too play sandbox 90% of the time. I am not looking for scenarios much, just having another user playing in game. They should never drop the SP option. I highly doubt that was their intention.

This is kind of what I was thinking... the MP would be a separate gamemode, and then you don't have to worry about people messing up your ships and stations~ (people who want MP can have their own fun, and the SP sandbox crew can keep playing like nothing changed c;)