Multiplayer & graphical update?

[fireblade274]

I've been under the impression of a lot of things in this game, which I've logged over 2.7k hours into over a few years. Though I have no burning desire to use multiplayer atm, was multiplayer not promised as a feature to be added with later updates, in addition to a graphical update?

Since the mass exodus of devs, this leaves a lot of questions with the community. I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are in regards to multiplayer, and what the loss of major game devs means for the game. Thoughts?

[Sandworm]

I don't think it makes all that much of a difference.  Multiplayer wasn't really under serious development.  So not much is lost.  As for a graphical update, frankly that is something that the community has been doing very well for many years.  There is no real point of spending time on it imho beyond perhaps purchasing some of the better mods.  That could happen just as easily with or without the lost devs.  In short: Multiplayer is still years away and unlikely, but a graphical update may happen.

[RX2000]

I dont see the point of multiplayer in this game? I mean we're just supposed to burn towards each other & dock together? I plan the rocket & you drive the rover once we get there? lol

I dunno, multiplayer is probably at the VERY bottom of my list of features I would like to see added to the game. But then again I never really play multiplayer in any game anyways. I'm more of a Skyrim kind of guy.

[Renegrade]

1 hour ago, RX2000 said:

I dont see the point of multiplayer in this game? I mean we're just supposed to burn towards each other & dock together? I plan the rocket & you drive the rover once we get there? lol

I dunno, multiplayer is probably at the VERY bottom of my list of features I would like to see added to the game. But then again I never really play multiplayer in any game anyways. I'm more of a Skyrim kind of guy.

Agreed; it seems kinda.. edge case scenario to me.  The solutions for time-warp in existing multiplayer mods have always sounded kinda sketchy and weird to me...

Anyhow, I also run by a golden rule for multiplayer: If I can't punch and/or put into a headlock any of my opponents for being idiots/cheats/brats, I won't play.  The LAN party era was the BEST era, hands down.

[problemecium]

I'm not exactly anxious for multiplayer, but I'd rather it happen than not, particularly because I recall SQUAD saying they did indeed decide to put it on the roadmap. Hopefully that hasn't changed or has merely been delayed.

And on the topic of visual upgrades, I'd say the modding community has been doing "well" considering their status as modders without low-level access to the game's architecture, but by professional game production standards the visual enhancement mods have a poor track record for performance and reliability. I remain of the opinion that before SQUAD washes their hands of KSP they devote one major patch to bringing the game's environments up to the same quality standards as the rest of it (and maybe add one or two new planets...).

[Regiampiero]

On 10/5/2016 at 1:37 AM, Sandworm said:

I don't think it makes all that much of a difference.  Multiplayer wasn't really under serious development.  So not much is lost.  As for a graphical update, frankly that is something that the community has been doing very well for many years.  There is no real point of spending time on it imho beyond perhaps purchasing some of the better mods.  That could happen just as easily with or without the lost devs.  In short: Multiplayer is still years away and unlikely, but a graphical update may happen.

 

On 10/5/2016 at 3:47 PM, RX2000 said:

I dont see the point of multiplayer in this game? I mean we're just supposed to burn towards each other & dock together? I plan the rocket & you drive the rover once we get there? lol

I dunno, multiplayer is probably at the VERY bottom of my list of features I would like to see added to the game. But then again I never really play multiplayer in any game anyways. I'm more of a Skyrim kind of guy.

That is completely short-sighted of you guys. Do you think Notch said, what do we need multiplayer for? So you can put your block on top of mine?  I would actually argue the opposite of what you two said. What's the point of going to the Mun, Duna or even the Sun if you can't share that experience with anyone? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to ear it....

Multiplayer would bring a new and fresh approach to the game, where a group of friends could join forces to explore more and also share their achievements with one-another. I for one would love to have a mode where I could play with my friends, set-up an array of space stations, re-stocking said stations so everyone had stepping stones to go further out in the solar system, being able to establish communication up-links ahead of your friend launching a rover mission to Duna....and so on. The possibilities are endless, but resources are obviously not. Especially at the moment. 

Do we need more in the game before MP becomes a must have, maybe. I think they need to implement some of the mods as permanent features of the game, such as TAC life support, Remote Tech and many other realistic mods that would make the game challenging for a group of players to tackle. Imagine having to send out a rescue mission to save one of your friend's crew from freezing in space due to lack of power, or giving your friend access to your mun orbiting station because he burned a little too much fuel during landing an now he can't get back home. Maybe I'm crazy, but that's the stuff that I think would make the game exciting. 

Edit: Also what if you could build on VAB on other planets, and in order to do so you would need to ferry the resources (at least some) there in order to build it? If that was an option it would be might handy to have a few extra pairs of hands to work on such projects. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Regiampiero

[Curveball Anders]

13 minutes ago, Regiampiero said:

What's the point of going to the Mun, Duna or even the Sun if you can't share that experience with anyone? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to ear it....

I've set a target, planned, designed, built and performed the execution of my planned mission.

I know that what I've done and can feel quite chuffed by it.

And I couldn't bother less with what anyone else thinks of what I've done.

[Leafbaron]

I could see multiplayer being exceptionally fun. I envision games of tag or seek and destroy kinda games. I also see exploring to be much more enjoyable, really the possibilities are endless.

[Regiampiero]

2 minutes ago, Curveball Anders said:

I've set a target, planned, designed, built and performed the execution of my planned mission.

I know that what I've done and can feel quite chuffed by it.

And I couldn't bother less with what anyone else thinks of what I've done.

And that makes you one of a kind! The rest of the people that live in a civil society need to be validated by a group of their peers in order to find enjoyment out of an action. Also have you ever discussed what you've accomplished in the game with anyone else? Or perhaps in this very forum? 

[Curveball Anders]

1 hour ago, Regiampiero said:

And that makes you one of a kind! The rest of the people that live in a civil society need to be validated by a group of their peers in order to find enjoyment out of an action. Also have you ever discussed what you've accomplished in the game with anyone else? Or perhaps in this very forum? 

I spend every working day co-operating (and sometimes trying to lead) with a large group of people trying to achieve our goals.

I spend most of hours outside of work doing very much the same but with less people and less obvious goals.

But no, I have no need to have everything I do validated by someone else, there are things that I can be pleased with just because I think they're pretty cool myself.

I've shared a few of my more hilarious failures here yes, and I often read people's stories.

I've asked some questions and I've tried to answer some.

For such this very forum works perfectly.

But that doesn't change that I see no need to try and kludge on an MP function to an inherently single player game.

[RX2000]

3 hours ago, Regiampiero said:

That is completely short-sighted of you guys. Do you think Notch said, what do we need multiplayer for? So you can put your block on top of mine?

Thats funny you mention that. I love Minecraft, but I've never played it multiplayer, or even wanted to.

[fireblade274]

I think an easy way for multiplayer to work would be for each player in the same Solar system to have to check the proverbial "ready to warp" box; warp can only be done when all players have agreed? Is this feasible?

[RX2000]

1 minute ago, fireblade274 said:

I think an easy way for multiplayer to work would be for each player in the same Solar system to have to check the proverbial "ready to warp" box; warp can only be done when all players have agreed? Is this feasible?

And then you warp too far & miss your node.

[fireblade274]

1 minute ago, RX2000 said:

And then you warp too far & miss your node.

I use KAC and with that I hit my node 99.99% of the time; I would think if multiplayer was added there would be a feature so that people who have closer nodes would not be passed by and would simply do what they gotta do and then allow everyone else to continue warping. Not saying you should need a mod for multiplayer, just that same system where time warp is slowed down and reaches 1x upon coming up on a node

[Leafbaron]

As far as I know the multiplayer that was implemented by modders used a time warp scenario where each time warp was a separate instance. By this I mean, one person time warps and until the other person reaches the same game clock time and location they would not see each other.....or something like that. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Leafbaron

[fireblade274]

1 minute ago, Leafbaron said:

As far as I know the multiplayer that was implemented by modders used a time warp scenario where each time warp was a separate instance. By this I mean, one person time warps and until the other person reaches the same game clock time and location they would not see each other. 

No comprendo.. So I burn to Jool, it takes 6 years for me. Sally burns to Jool, it takes her 7 years. I have to wait for Sally to time warp another hour before I can see her, even if she's also in the Jool system?

[Leafbaron]

Yes even though you are both in the same system you are there at different times. Even though after the difference of 1 year passes youll still be there together. Until the game clocks are synced on both players you exist in different timelines. Its not perfect.... A better way to to do it would be: player 1 presses time warp. player 2 is prompted with a message "player 1 wishes to time warp, press > to initiate time warp". dealing with maneuver nodes could be something along the lines of stopping time warp before one player reaches a node. if two nodes exist one at t-minus 5 minutes and another at t-minus 8 minutes. warping would stop at the soonest node. Once burn node is released both players are prompted with a message "resume time warp? press > to continue" Regardless of player 1 of 2's wishes if player either player hits / to stop time warp, warping stops. 

This type would be great for keeping 2 players on the same page in the universe, however if adding more that jsut 2 people it could be an issue. too many hands in the pot. which beings us back to the first proposed method. where time warping is a separate instance for each player, but players have the option to sync game clocks with other players. From a realism standpoint it doesn't make much such sense because like you said. you could both be in the same system but not able to see each other. Even from your relative position you should be able to see sally arrive a year later. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Leafbaron

[J.Random]

I wouldn't hold my breath for major improvements.

MP: Don't care. Voronoi craters anywhere beyond Mun - don't believe it will ever happen. Wheels - try to climb >15^o incline, good luck. Torque curve is still there, so no high torque low/constant RPM wheels. Squad uses EVE/Scatterer screenshots to advertise the game in social networks, yet I doubt they will ever add anything like that into the game. Dynamic lighting - AHAHAHAHAHAH. Worst of all, with Porkjet gone, there's no chance for his clean light style to become a single design standard for the game.

Edited October 7, 2016 by J.Random

[MockKnizzle]

There's a very, very big difference between plans and promises. And in game development, plans change all the time as the circumstances surrounding them change. While multiplayer might have been part of SQUAD's plan two years ago, there's a good chance that that's no longer the case. I'm fairly certain that SQUAD has never promised anything in terms of future features - only laid out their current plan at the time.

[fireblade274]

8 hours ago, J.Random said:

...Squad uses EVE/Scatterer screenshots to advertise the game in social networks...

Really? Thats like str8 up false advertising right? Is this recent

[J.Random]

6 hours ago, fireblade274 said:

Really? Thats like str8 up false advertising right?

Technically it isn't, because it's usually other people's screenshots/gifs/videos, but the intention seems to be there alright.

[klgraham1013]

16 hours ago, J.Random said:

Worst of all, with Porkjet gone, there's no chance for his clean light style to become a single design standard for the game.

Let's just hope Squad uses PJ's design sheet.  That is if we get a graphical overhaul at all.  Otherwise we're stuck with the disparity of oil barrels and NASA parts.

8 hours ago, fireblade274 said:

Really? Thats like str8 up false advertising right? Is this recent

Shady, but probably not illegal.  Buying the game does allow you to have a game that looks like those screenshots.  You just need to put in a bit more work after the purchase.

[luizopiloto]

KSP + Multiplayer + Roleplay == Recreate any Sci-Fi thing you like...
Or even recreate RL missions with you or your friend as mission controll...

[SchweinAero]

17 hours ago, Leafbaron said:

A better way to to do it would be: player 1 presses time warp. player 2 is prompted with a message "player 1 wishes to time warp, press > to initiate time warp". dealing with maneuver nodes could be something along the lines of stopping time warp before one player reaches a node. if two nodes exist one at t-minus 5 minutes and another at t-minus 8 minutes. warping would stop at the soonest node. Once burn node is released both players are prompted with a message "resume time warp? press > to continue" Regardless of player 1 of 2's wishes if player either player hits / to stop time warp, warping stops.

(snip)

From a realism standpoint (there being different timelines) doesn't make much such sense because like you said. you could both be in the same system but not able to see each other. Even from your relative position you should be able to see sally arrive a year later. 

I've played DMP using both vote-warp and sync-warp, and in my opinion the latter conclusively solves the problem. As far as realism is concerned, syncing up timelines needs no more suspension of disbelief than there being a timewarp ("accelerated waiting") option in the first place.

And as you note, enforcing a unified warp rate really does effectively destroy interplanetary missions. That's at least the case with the 10 or so players in a busy DMP game. However Squad chooses to go about it, I hope a sync-warp system will be an option.

[Red Iron Crown]

9 hours ago, fireblade274 said:

Really? Thats like str8 up false advertising right? Is this recent

On social media they share a lot of player-generated content, much of which features mods (and not just Scatterer/EVE, but part mods and others, too). I'm not sure it's "false advertising" as a vibrant modding community is a big part of KSP, at least for the non-console versions. The pickings for player generated content would be very slim indeed if they only used purely stock stuff.

2 minutes ago, SchweinAero said:

I've played DMP using both vote-warp and sync-warp, and in my opinion the latter conclusively solves the problem.

It most certainly does not, it rewards aggressive use of time warp in any race situation as real time is more important than in game time. It may be the "least bad" solution though. With multiplayer timewarp it is waiting or sync issues, choose one.