Multiplayer "logic"

[daffy]

I just don't see multiplayer ever happening.  Officially I mean.  Third parties have, and will do, and I know it has always been listed as a goal of Squad....but I don't expect it.  If I'm proven wrong, then I'll take it all back!!  

[AlamoVampire]

In all honesty i hope multiplayer goes the way the original resources went. As in away, forgotten. Ksp does not need it. There is a mod for those who it. Keep it as a mod.

[Alshain]

If anyone wants to see what multiplayer could be like watch this video series.  Yes it was full of bugs that did strange things but hopefully a Squad backed version wouldn't be.  The concept is there though.

 

13 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

In all honesty i hope multiplayer goes the way the original resources went. As in away, forgotten. Ksp does not need it. There is a mod for those who it. Keep it as a mod.

Realistically, there is no mod, it never worked right and probably never will.  It was just and experiment.  Multiplayer is not something that can be modded on, it has to be internal.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Alshain

[AlamoVampire]

@Alshain This is one game that does NOT NEED multiplayer. Not suited for it.

[Alshain]

15 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Alshain This is one game that does NOT NEED multiplayer. Not suited for it.

I disagree.  This game can benefit from multiplayer.  You don't have to use it.

[Dfthu]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

I disagree.  This game can benefit from multiplayer.  You don't have to use it.

I agree. It would awesome to build stations and bases but I do think the DMP way is the best.

[regex]

I think for 1.2 we'll get finalized graphics and some prettification like clouds, a delta-V calculator, antenna range, and maybe a few other little features.  1.3 will be the big push for multiplayer.  (After that I think they'll stick a fork in it.)  I have no use for multiplayer other than maybe griefing some random open server for laughs.  I mean, I doubt it'll work properly for RO-style games and for stock, well, I have friends on IRC for long AFK trips around Kerbin...

Edited April 9, 2016 by regex

[Kosmognome]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

I disagree.  This game can benefit from multiplayer.  You don't have to use it.

I really don't see KSP benefiting from normal MP as DMP does it at all. Implementing MP correctly is complicated and an tremendous effort in games that run in real-time, in a game like KSP it is a magnitude more complicated. And for what?

 

I mean what does MP *really* bring?

 

You can dogfight in the atmo - this is nice, but not what KSP is about in the first place. You can someone else have service your station in LKO. This is nice, but again, not something KSP is really about in the first place and furthermore nohing an NPC can't do. If you timewarp during your mission to the mun and when you come back your buddy has filled up your LKO station, then where is the meaningful interaction bewteen those two players? I don't see one. You can do the occasional "Oh hey lets meet in LKO and dock" thing (like the Apollo-Soyuz test), but apart from doing it once or twice for the novelty, it doesn't exactly bring any meaningful gameplay.

 

The only thing MP (in that form) brings is being able to do "Space races", but you can already do that without MP. Specify wether you race in ingame-time or real-time, and you are good to go. Start new career, play both in your game.

 

And the other thing I have already layed out is that "multiplayer" is not the same as "multiplayer". There are several way to implement it (MMO-like [like DMP], co-op, parallel play etc.), and if you say "KSP would benefit from MP", then it doesn't add much to the discussion if you don't explain what form of MP you mean.

 

No every game needs or benefits from MP. I would rather have Squad focus on making the single-player mode better, and especially have them fix some long-standing bugs. The game is far from finished, and introducing MP only adds a gazillion of new bugs to a game that already has a fair share of them.

 

 

 

[g00bd0g]

I would love to just sit at at KSC and watch people launch/explode all day long

[Alshain]

10 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

I really don't see KSP benefiting from normal MP as DMP does it at all. Implementing MP correctly is complicated and an tremendous effort in games that run in real-time, in a game like KSP it is a magnitude more complicated. And for what?

 

I mean what does MP *really* bring?

 

You can dogfight in the atmo - this is nice, but not what KSP is about in the first place. You can someone else have service your station in LKO. This is nice, but again, not something KSP is really about in the first place and furthermore nohing an NPC can't do. If you timewarp during your mission to the mun and when you come back your buddy has filled up your LKO station, then where is the meaningful interaction bewteen those two players? I don't see one. You can do the occasional "Oh hey lets meet in LKO and dock" thing (like the Apollo-Soyuz test), but apart from doing it once or twice for the novelty, it doesn't exactly bring any meaningful gameplay.

 

The only thing MP (in that form) brings is being able to do "Space races", but you can already do that without MP. Specify wether you race in ingame-time or real-time, and you are good to go. Start new career, play both in your game.

 

And the other thing I have already layed out is that "multiplayer" is not the same as "multiplayer". There are several way to implement it (MMO-like [like DMP], co-op, parallel play etc.), and if you say "KSP would benefit from MP", then it doesn't add much to the discussion if you don't explain what form of MP you mean.

 

No every game needs or benefits from MP. I would rather have Squad focus on making the single-player mode better, and especially have them fix some long-standing bugs. The game is far from finished, and introducing MP only adds a gazillion of new bugs to a game that already has a fair share of them.

 

 

 

Bear in mind I was responding to "This is one game that does NOT NEED multiplayer. Not suited for it." and responded in kind.  That is why I didn't feel the need to explain any further.  The person I was responding to added nothing to the discussion, so neither did I.

As for the kind of Multiplayer, DMP style is what I think would be best.  It is open enough to allow players/server owners to do what they want when they want, kinda like Minecraft.  Personally my brother and I have played Minecraft and Terraria on my little personal server together and that is what I'd like to do.  We tried DMP but it was just too glitchy.  Both of us love KSP and we'd like to build stations and plan missions together or even have a good old fashioned Space Race.  The concept of DMP was perfect, it just lacked implementation.

I can understand those who are thinking of MP from an MMO perspective or even just a Minecraft public server perspective.  KSP Multiplayer will be better played with friends, rather than on your own with other people in the world.  I have no doubt about that.  However, that doesn't mean the game isn't suited for it.  I would guess those who don't want Multiplayer, haven't played a game like Minecraft/Terraria in co-op with friends, or just don't have the means to do so.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

13 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

And the other thing I have already layed out is that "multiplayer" is not the same as "multiplayer".

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

Timewarp is the thing that breaks multiplayer in KSP, IMO, whether cooperative or competitive. It's waiting or sync issues, choose one. DMP's approach is probably the least bad way to go about it (it chooses sync issues over waiting), but it is far from perfect.

[Skybird0]

Here is a thought I had about MP implementation:  Timewarp could be made into a sort of hyperdrive where you remain in the same timeframe, but move faster though space in a non-Newtonian way.  Your actual velocity would not change, and your controls would be locked-out, but control would be returned once you drop out of "hyperspace".

Obviously there are other issues that would need worked out that I have not discussed as this is only a basic suggestion, but I think the idea has merit.

Example: This would not work for physical timewarp.

[AlamoVampire]

So @Alshain if i read you correctly my admittedly blunt opinion that this game is not suited for multiplayer brings nothing to the conversation? Fine. Let me expand.

1. How will mods (parts and ro/rp-0 for ex) be handled? Especially when not all people use the same ones?

2. Time warp. How will this kodiak bear be dealt with?

3. People breaking space stations for kicks? Say you build a station then i come along after your gone doing something else and i dock and remove nodes or fully crash it? No real proof would show up to prove what really went down. Too big a chance for bs like this.

4. People ramming others for kicks? 

I can go on for ever with ways this can go bad, and guess what? Squad can never be prepared for all of it. They need to scrap the idea and focus on the single player aspect.

They need to make the career mode more ...well... more coherent, meaningful, linear and logical. It needs a reason for players to play it and not science mode or sandbox. Thats no small task. Its one that is huge and needs attending to. I again can go on till i pass out, but i trust my points made.

Edited April 10, 2016 by AlamoVampire

[Alshain]

4 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

So @Alshain if i read you correctly my admittedly blunt opinion that this game is not suited for multiplayer brings nothing to the conversation? Fine. Let me expand.

1. How will mods (parts and ro/rp-0 for ex) be handled? Especially when not all people use the same ones?

2. Time warp. How will this kodiak bear be dealt with?

3. People breaking space stations for kicks? Say you build a station then i come along after your gone doing something else and i dock and remove nodes or fully crash it? No real proof would show up to prove what really went down. Too big a chance for bs like this.

4. People ramming others for kicks? 

I can go on for ever with ways this can go bad, and guess what? Squad can never be prepared for all of it. They need to scrap the idea and focus on the single player aspect.

They need to make the career mode more ...well... more coherent, meaningful, linear and logical. It needs a reason for players to play it and not science mode or sandbox. Thats no small task. Its one that is huge and needs attending to. I again can go on till i pass out, but i trust my points made.

1. Easy. you want to play on my server... install my mods.

2.  You clearly haven't played with DMP or watched the video I posted above.  Players are instanced.  Your time runs on your time and you can sync to anyone ahead of you in time when you want.

3. Yep, griefing happens, strangely that hasn't stopped companies from adding Multiplayer to their games.  On my server for Minecraft I know everyone who plays on them and I know they wouldn't do that.  There is only 6 of us and we are all related to each other Brother, 2 Sisters, Sister-in-law, Brother-in law, future Brother-in-law (technically not related yet)... there is no griefing on my server because it isn't public.  Multiplayer Minecraft is HUGELY popular and yet there are absolutely no anti-grief measures in that game.

4. Same as 3.

Squad doesn't have to be prepared for any of it.  Multiplayer does not mean strangers on a server, not necessarily.  It can be, but it doesn't have to be.  You have locked the definition of Multiplayer into one scenario.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Alshain

[lobe]

Are there any multiplayer games which use timewarp like KSP does? That looks to be the biggest hurdle. Most games I know with multiplayer don't have a timewarp function or limit its use on servers, like how in Minecraft everyone needs to sleep to get to the next day, or that is how it used to be. I think 1.9 changed that. I don't think that will work in KSP, where you might be on a landing and someone decides to warp 10x. If they do implement it the server would need a stock cap of 10 or so people to do it DMP style where everyone is able to vote on a timewarp, and the decision would need to be unanimous. I don't think a server of more than 50 would be possible because there would always be someone launching, landing, or in atmosphere.

[Warzouz]

MP in KSP is indeed a loose multiplayer. Players would interact in few occasion. It very much like Minecraft, were you build stuff, see what have done other players and even help them or improve their creation.

There is much room for base management, space stations. Sure MP KSP would feel much less empty (there would surely be multiple space stations around every body, but that could be a very nice support for interesting  mods.

For now MP is mostly a blank sheet. I hope that Squad will get into it. But they have to finish many features in their game first (graphics, sounds, more planets, dV :D, ...

[Kosmognome]

12 hours ago, Alshain said:

I would guess those who don't want Multiplayer, haven't played a game like Minecraft/Terraria in co-op with friends, or just don't have the means to do so.

Please do not make baseless asuumptions. I have played a variety of MMOs, both with stragers and with friends, and I regularly play Space Engineers (MC in space) on a small server with only a handful of hand-picked people, and I have played co-op games before. I actually prefer the intimacy of playing with only a couple well-known people, but I also enjoy MMos and playign with several dozens strangers.

 

8 hours ago, Skybird0 said:

Here is a thought I had about MP implementation:  Timewarp could be made into a sort of hyperdrive where you remain in the same timeframe, but move faster though space in a non-Newtonian way.  Your actual velocity would not change, and your controls would be locked-out, but control would be returned once you drop out of "hyperspace".

Obviously there are other issues that would need worked out that I have not discussed as this is only a basic suggestion, but I think the idea has merit.

Example: This would not work for physical timewarp.

This doesn#t work. imagine a simple Hohmann transfer. you start at Kerbin, make your escape burn and transfer burn and have a Duna encounter. Now you enter "hyperspace" and travel *much* faster. Congrats, you arrive at your Duna intercept but duna isn't there.

 

The DMP way is not optimal, but arguably better because at least it works.

 

@AlamoVampire

Mods have been dealt with for Mp for ages. There are simple solutions like whitelisting and backlisting mods. To play on a certain server you need to have the required mods, and need not to have any blocked mods. KSp can check that quite easily by checking the loaded .dlls at runtime.

 

Griefing has also been dealt with since MP was first added to games, and there exist a multitude of tools for it. First solution: Don't deal with it, and leave it at the discretion of the server admin. If you have small servers, only allowing authorised users to connect would be sufficient. Find a griefer? ban him.

Subsequently, you could also add things like reverting. If a station in orbit is destroyed by a griefer, just give the server admin tools to restore the station. In fact you don't even need to reset the whle server for that. Log what happens, and if an hour after my station was destroyed the admin restores it, it can even be placed at the right time in the orbit (an hour later then it was at the restore point) with ease.

 

So yeah, the "normal" MP problems can be easily dealt with. The problem is time-warp. I simply don't find DMPs solution all that convincing.

 

[AlamoVampire]

I will be blunt. There is so much work that must be done on single player that, realistically and logically it is not feasible or even remotely appropriate for multiplayer to be even a spec of a hint of a shadow of a glimmer of a dream of a suggestion to be considered. Why? Simple. Career mode for starters.

1. It has no meaning. As in why play it over sand box or science? Contracts are illogically presented, non-linear progression, as in, it will give you contracts that are well beyond your means just because you did something that is but a step to that contract.

2. What is there to keep me once the novelty fades? Again, the illogic of it all kills it quick.

3. Then you have bugs. Some bugs have been around since before 0.21 and there is no telling when or if they get squished.

I can go on, but suffice it to say that multiplayer is beyond the scope of what is logical and appropriate for squad to do now. Like it or not, this game is not mature enough (read: polished enough in terms of performance, graphics and bugs) for such ambitions. Likewise squad is setting the bar very high with their ambitions as far as i can tell and doing multiplayer now or even in 6 months or even a year may be too soon and could be more damaging and disastrous to the game and its future. 

I am sorry to say it, but, logic demands that it be postponed until single-player has been even more properly fleshed out. I say this with clinical and logical dispassion pure and simple. 

With passion and emotion i say: multiplayer in ksp is not my brand of tea or coffee and i will forever pass on it. As ive said in other threads: i have said what i feel i needed to. I now depart this thread never to return to it. Happy flying and happy exploring to you all. 

[Skybird0]

8 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

This doesn#t work. imagine a simple Hohmann transfer. you start at Kerbin, make your escape burn and transfer burn and have a Duna encounter. Now you enter "hyperspace" and travel *much* faster. Congrats, you arrive at your Duna intercept but duna isn't there.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that...  I remember thinking about it a long time ago.  You could just lock the planets.  Make them static.  Of course there will be those who think that this is a very radical idea, well, I agree to an extent.  Or you could setup your intercept differently.  But lets face it, MP KSP will never be perfect because someone will always find something wrong with it, or complain about something not quite adding up.  But you know, I don't think that it should be that big a deal.    We might just be over thinking it.

Just my two cents.:)

[Alshain]

@AlamoVampire I think you are a bit uninformed.  Multiplayer is not just in consideration, Squad has already begun developing it.  They have reaffirmed this many times.

You also seem to be under the impression that Squad shares your view that career mode is so far behind, I don't speak for them but an educated guess tells me they like it the way it is and it isn't likely to change very much at this point.  Your reasoning for not adding multiplayer seems to be that you don't like career but that in itself is completely illogical.  The two have nothing to do with one another.

[Dispatcher]

My interest in multiplayer is simply so that a few of my relatives and friends can enjoy KSP together in the same gameplay.  I hope Squad succeeds in this area of development, once the single player game is fleshed out pretty well.  In fact, I'm sure that KSP will have a new found appeal to people who prefer multiplayer games.

[Tourist]

I think too much of the commentary, although not all, has focused on the logistical problems in implementing a multiplayer. I don't think that is the issue, many people has suggested solutions, which I have no doubt it is possible for Squad to implement. The problem is I just don't think that multiplayer really adds anything to the game and that really Squad has committed to it just because its the done thing.... possibly also as sweetener for console certification. 

I just don't see it working as anything other than an out-of-place appendage that just feels a little tacked on.

(Just append an "in my opinion" to everything I'm about to say)

Co-op

KSP doesn't have particularly deep management systems that would make it sufficiently fun for two or more players to take on different roles within a space agency. I'd love to see a game which allows players to step into the shoes of Gene Krantz, Deke Slayton, or Von Braun, and any of the other myriad of roles, and for that to be really entertaining for all the participants to work towards the same goal. I could even see real life roleplay developing,with KSP as a tool for participants to get into it. A bit like the forum game going on at the moment. 

That game is not at its core KSP.... ultimately the fun roles are craft designing, mission planning and flying (the entirety of the game actually) ... but these roles don't take place contemporaneously.... if you as player are not playing all these roles, then you're watching somebody else doing a significant part of the game-play. Even dividing it that one person is the pilot, the other plans the course, is ultimately not particularly interesting for both players most of the time. One just points the craft where the other one tells them to, and the other just messes around with the map view. 

Servicing a mission? You fly the transfer vessel that will explore new planets, your friend services it and refuels it in orbit. The friend really drew the short straw on that one.... mine, rendezvous, refine the ore, transfer the fuel, got back to the planet/asteroid, repeat. 

Co-op space base building. I call this minecraft mode. This is possible. You bring up a module, in the meantime your friend has brought up a module. What weird and wonderful shapes it will take. I can really see that only being fun for about one, maybe two sessions. There are only so may ways the various parts in KSP can be put together, and  bases in KSP don't serve any real purpose.

Co-op exploring? You: Ok friend, you take your rover west, I'll take mine east and we will talk about what we saw. Friend: sounds fun. You: do you see anything interesting? Friend: not really, featureless plains. You? You: no nothing either.

By this I mean, KSP is not really about exploration on the surface of planets.... you can do it, its just that there is nothing to really see while your doing it.

non-co-op

Ok, so maybe competing space agencies. The game clock decides who reaches key milestones first. (Ie I've been playing for 20 in game years and reached Jool, but you beat me because you got there in 17.) That could work, but ultimately it is still just a leaderboard, and I might add completely playable as a forum game. Really there is no benefit of playing in the same instance, besides flavour. Also still feels tacked onto to me, even if all the players in the competition exist in the same instance (timewarp dealt with in some fashion.) Although, I feel this is the strongest multiplayer model.  

Intercepting and destroying peoples space stations/ships.... firstly, this is not Elite Dangerous so actually ship to ship dog-fighting in space is right out.... it just doesn't work when you take orbital mechanics into consideration, an burn here to avoid getting rammed, a burn there to try to ram... you are both out of fuels and in hilariously different orbits. We also don't have any weapons.

Station destroying? You can do that now, play side by side, one friend puts in in orbit, and hands over the controls to the other that does a standard rendezvous, get close and rams. Ah, I hear the straw-man I'm arguing against say, if two players are playing simultaneously then the station owner can use thrusters or engines to avoid the intercept. That is true, I say, but if the station has the capability of changing orbital speed/inclination, then intercept will be all but impossible. The only way to win is to hope you have sufficient fuel to adjust to what every wacky orbit the space station has put itself on to avoid you, after it has avoided its fuel. 

Its not that any of these ideas would not work, its just that they don't really seem related to what KSP is about. Also many of them I actually don't see the benefit of actually being in the same instance as other payers, besides a bit of flavour.      

 

Ultimately I don't care, I won't use it regularly beyond having a bit of a sticky beak. When its implemented it wont ruin the game, or affect me in the slightest. And I don't think Squad is wasting too much resources on it (or any is my impression), and if they were, that's their call anyway. 

 

 

  

 

Edited April 11, 2016 by Tourist

[Northropi]

Would commenting here necro this post?  It's been like a month since the last guy.  Anyways, I admit I want MP, but I think DMP doesn't do it quite right.  I second a lot of what Alshain said above, but to be clear, I basically have no interest in playing vanilla KSP in multiplayer.  I want to get into mod-heavy dogfights with friends on LAN, not play with tonnes of strangers in vanilla career.  Admittedly, I've never touched career mode.  And, I've been running more of a PMC than a space program...  

I also don't think Squad should do this unless entirely necessary, or if they have a really good idea of how to bring it all together that didn’t occur to us.

As for the time warp issues, I think that voting would work unless you have a tonne of players on the server at once.  “*player* wants to timewarp (1000x speed) until Maneuver Node (10 hours).  Vote: Y/N.” Otherwise, some simple system- the sort of weird, parallel timeline system DMP uses is the reason I and others are not all over it, with all due respect to its devs.

In short, KSP MP is, in my opinion, probably best left as by mods, for mods. If it takes Squad to put it together though, sure.

[Stargate525]

3 hours ago, Northropi said:

In short, KSP MP is, in my opinion, probably best left as by mods, for mods. If it takes Squad to put it together though, sure.

It's on the list of things Squad has Promised to Do.

It replaced a ISRU system, which was 'not fun,' and announced on a third party website as something they'd 'always planned.'

The FAQ on the subject, until I pointed it out, read not to suggest it as it was something the Devs had said repeatedly wouldn't be included in the game.

And of course, we now have ISRU and no multiplayer...

[AbacusWizard]

I have no interest in dogfights and little interest in jointly building stations, but where I think multi-player could really shine is allowing players to control multiple ships at once. Consider, for instance, the following rescue scenario:

Jeb is on the planet surface and his lander has enough fuel to launch into a suborbital trajectory, but not enough to get to orbit.

Val is in orbit with the mothership that has plenty of fuel, but engines too weak to land and take off again.

Solution: Jeb launches into a wide suborbital trajectory while Val maneuvers onto an intercept course at Jeb's apoapsis. When the lander and the mothership are close enough, Val slows down the mothership to match Jeb's speed (putting the mothership temporarily onto a seemingly fatal suborbital trajectory). Jeb bails out from the doomed lander and EVA-jets over to the mothership and gets on board. Val turns the mothership prograde and fires the engines to return to a safe orbital trajectory.

Of course, this requires careful calculations and absolutely precise timing... AND the ability to have two vessels being controlled at once! Perfect scenario for multiplayer.