A more perfect KSP

[Enceos]

@Magzimum The problem in your scenario is that Player 2 meets Player 1 when their timeframes are out of sync. Plus it's also a question of ownership, if Player 1 owns the mining base and has the full control of it, Player 2 should see this base only when he's in the same timeframe as the Player 1. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Enceos

[Wjolcz]

On 05/01/2017 at 2:58 PM, Magzimum said:

 

• Career overhaul. Disagree. I like the career. It's unrealistic how you unlock new parts directly from doing science, but from a gameplay perspective this works. You got a budget. You need to achieve something. Then you unlock new stuff and you get new budget. Repeat. Maybe people who like the career are less noisy than those who dislike it?

A budget? Achieve something? Is this a suggestion of how it should look like or the descrption of the current one? Because I haven't noticed any budget nor gameplay focused on achieving meaningful goals in the current career.

Must be a suggestion then...

[regex]

3 hours ago, Enceos said:

For players who are currently in different scenes the time will split into several dimensions during time warp:

If PLAYER 1 wants to meet PLAYER 2, he will need to warp forward to sync the timeframe. Same with PLAYERs 1 and 2 if they want to meet PLAYER 3 who warped time quite forward. Of course it will require a new comprehensive GUI tab where players can see each other's timeframes and can sync with a click of a button.

Tagging you @regex since you're quite a critical thinker.

Each player has their own reference frame or does each player craft have its own reference frame?

Will each player then see past and future orbits of their counterparts within the game?

I'm assuming that one can only sync time forward when performing a meet-up.

This sounds like how I recall DMP working except you've added a restriction to the local frame. That sort of thing probably shouldn't even be a requirement since the chances of two players having craft in the same locale (physics range) in different timeframes is quite low unless you're talking surface stuff.

1 hour ago, Magzimum said:

Player 1 sends a mining rig to Minmus and starts mining on Y3, D1. He warps ahead to wait until the tanks are full, and on Y3, D5 he docks his SSTO and refills the tanks, then flies home for celebrations and medals.

Player 2 is playing on Y3, D1 too. He has a ship in high Mun orbit. And as unlikely as it seems, he managed to accelerate his ship so much that he gets to the Minmus site on Y3 D3. After player 1 has left Minmus in real time, he crashes his drone ship into the mining colony on Y3, D3, and completely destroys it.

I believe DMP handles this by requiring that the player wishing to ruin the party needs to sync up with base owner's timeframe. Therefore the mining base does not "exist" (in the sense that it cannot be interacted with) until the griefer timewarps to Y3 D5. In that case the party is still ruined but the base owner was able to refuel and return successfully.

1 hour ago, Enceos said:

@Magzimum The problem in your scenario is that Player 2 meets Player 1 when their timeframes are out of sync. Plus it's also a question of ownership, if Player 1 owns the mining base and has the full control of it, Player 2 should see this base only when he's in the same timeframe as the Player 1. 

Is this some sort of attempt at griefing protection? What happens when both players are in the same timeframe and both have craft occupying the same space, do they just float through each other unless both have flipped a "usage switch"? How can someone, for instance, dock/refuel/add fuel/generally service at a station owned by someone who isn't playing at the moment?

I find that undesirable. It removes all possibility of emergent/collaborative gameplay and relegates the game to a mere art gallery. If we're just playing an art gallery there is no reason to make the game multiplayer. In fact, in the scenario you just described we aren't even playing an art gallery since we can't even see other's craft unless they've set an ownership flag.

[Magzimum]

1 hour ago, Enceos said:

@Magzimum The problem in your scenario is that Player 2 meets Player 1 when their timeframes are out of sync. [...]

Exactly. It's a problem. So how would a multiplayer game deal with it? I am not going to defend the multiplayer. In my opinion, it doesn't work, and therefore I am against the idea of such multiplayer where players can warp individually.

However, if we can solve this together, perhaps by doing this mental exercise, I could become the biggest fan of multiplayer.  

1 hour ago, Enceos said:

[...] Plus it's also a question of ownership, if Player 1 owns the mining base and has the full control of it, Player 2 should see this base only when he's in the same timeframe as the Player 1. 

Ok. I see your point. That would indeed solve the paradox from the previous scenario. Let me change the scenario. 

(Note: I am not trying to be annoying - if we want this multiplayer to have any chance, it shouldn't have any loopholes, and it certainly shouldn't be breakfast for the Kraken). 

Player 1 sends a mining rig to Minmus and starts mining on Y3, D1. He warps ahead to wait until the tanks are full, and on Y3, D5 he docks his SSTO and refills the tanks, then flies home for celebrations and medals (i.e. no change compared to the previous post).

[new] Player 2 is playing on Y3, D1 too. He has a ship in high Mun orbit. And as unlikely as it seems, he managed to accelerate his ship so much that he gets to the Minmus site on Y3 D3. After player 1 has left Minmus in real time, he lands right on top of the original mining site with a lander on Y3, D3. Of course, he cannot see the mining rig, because he is not in the same timeframe, so no crash occurs. (It's a safe landing, so no explosions anyway). Now player 1 and 2 decide to work together, and while player 1 toggles back to the mining rig in Y3 D5, player 2 also warps ahead to Y3 D5. Both the mining rig and the lander are now at the same time frame and at the exact same spot. That should be a problem.

(Not realistic? Far fetched? I say it can be quite realistic to accidentally be at the same spot around the easter eggs and on the KSC (e.g. runway) ).

[Enceos]

@Magzimum Simple enough, the game should project a shadow copy of another player's base when Player 1 approaches its location. The visual representation of the base will allow careful positioning so that when Player 2 warps to Player 1's timeframe, his newly landed ship doesn't clip into other vessels.

@regex in my model each player has its own reference frame, not crafts. In map view he will see the same orbits as the Player who warped to future sees, but the position of the orbiting craft will be adjusted to the timeframe of the player who's looking at the screen, and will probably see a dimmed icon of the actual position of the craft in Player 2's universe. This way the Player 1 can launch and rendezvouz with the station of Player 2 who warped forward.

Imagine this scenario:

Player 2 constructed a station on Y1 D1 and warped forward to Y1 D5.

Player 1 launches a new module to the station on Y1 D3, performs all renezvouz maneuvers, during the final approach the game will load a non-colliable non-interactable shadow copy of the station in the state it looks in 2^nd Player's dimension. After Player 1 cancels the relative speed the game pops up a window which tells: "The target exists in Y1 D5, warp time forward for rendezvouz?". If Player 1 clicks "yes" the game warps forward and synchronizes the timeframe with Player 2, during this warp the relative position of the 1^st Player's vessel to the station will be frozen. After the warp he can dock with the station.

Ownership is not a griefing protection, it's just a marker that defines which crafts warp forward with the player, leaving a non-interactable shadow copy behind, and which don't. Synchronizing the timeframe with the Player who owns the craft will make it interactable.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Enceos

[regex]

1 minute ago, Enceos said:

The visual representation of the base will allow careful positioning so that when Player 2 warps to Player 1's timeframe, his newly landed ship doesn't clip into other vessels.

What if Player 2 carefully positions their ship to intersect Player 1's base?

1 minute ago, Enceos said:

@regex in my model each player has its own reference frame, not crafts. In map view he will see the same orbits as the Player who warped to future sees, but the position of the orbiting craft will be adjusted to the timeframe of the player who's looking at the screen, and will probably see a dimmed icon of the actual position of the craft in Player 2's universe. This way the Player 1 can launch and rendezvouz with the station of Player 2 who warped forward.

Imagine this scenario:

Player 2 constructed a station on Y1 D1 and warped forward to Y1 D5.

Player 1 launches a new module to the station on Y1 D3, performs all renezvouz maneuvers, during the final approach the game will load a non-colliable non-interactable shadow copy of the station in the state it looks in 2^nd Player's dimension. After Player 1 cancels the relative speed the game pops up a window which tells: "The target exists in Y1 D5, warp time forward for rendezvouz?". If Player 1 clicks "yes" the game warps forward and synchronizes the timeframe with Player 2, during this warp the relative position of the 1^st Player's vessel will be frozen. After the warp he can dock to the station.

Ownership is not a griefing protection, it's just a marker that defines which crafts warp forward with the player, leaving a shadow copy behind, and which don't.

Pretty sure this is the current DMP model, which has seemed to work reasonably well for others.

[Enceos]

7 minutes ago, regex said:

What if Player 2 carefully positions their ship to intersect Player 1's base?

He could as well ram your station instead of docking. People have an option to choose who they play with.

But, in case this was accidental, it is preventable, the shadow copy will glow red if your vessel intersects one of its colliders, and timewarp will be locked in this case.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Enceos

[Numberyellow]

Oh my...quantum mechanics, and divergent time streams....

 

The way i envisioned MP working would be a group of friends in a single instance, working together on a single project...

Players 1-4 are on Kerbin...they want to build a station. They've already designed, built, packaged, and saved their parts. They set up either at separate launch sites, or queue at the Launch facilities at KSP. (simultaneous launches from the runway and launch pad would work too), and they launch. They meet up in orbit, and start working. players can go back down to kerbin, to pick up more parts, if needed...and then they come back up, and keep working.

Or, say you have a complicated plane you're trying to fly...you can focus on flying, while your co-pilot handles things like retracting gear, staging, operating sensors, lights, etc

I never imagined it being like an open-world deal, where everyone is doing different things, on different planets/moons.

[HebaruSan]

 

9 hours ago, Numberyellow said:

And i'd be mad, because you're dinking around with the mun, instead of being on the transport for Jool.

What would be the point of having people doing different missions in the same space?

"... aaand we're captured. OK, you go set up the mining base on Pol. I'm going to try to gather some science from Tylo. We'll meet back up at Laythe."

5 hours ago, Enceos said:

P.S. @HebaruSan I didn't find any arguments against the second runway, would you cite please?

Whoops, I messed up; my bad. And my first attempts to reply to this got way too snippy, so I'm going to bow out of this thread now. Best wishes to you all.

[Numberyellow]

3 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

 

"... aaand we're captured. OK, you go set up the mining base on Pol. I'm going to try to gather some science from Tylo. We'll meet back up at Laythe."

I think i understand now.... you're not thinking i meant MP for CAREER, did you?

I was talking sandbox. Now, i know you can do a science sandbox..but with everything unlocked, there's not much point to doing science.

 

Don't go.....i LIKE snippy..

[regex]

10 minutes ago, Numberyellow said:

The way i envisioned MP working would be a group of friends in a single instance, working together on a single project...

How do you handle orbital rendezvous without timewarp? That's like, a recipe for boredom.

Quote

Or, say you have a complicated plane you're trying to fly...you can focus on flying, while your co-pilot handles things like retracting gear, staging, operating sensors, lights, etc

Sorry, this sounds exceedingly boring for one or more of the players.

Quote

I never imagined it being like an open-world deal, where everyone is doing different things, on different planets/moons.

Yeah, I'm kind of wondering what the real appeal of multiplayer is in this game. Aside from griefing it all sounds pretty boring. I already (when I still actively played) sit on IRC and share images vis Imgur, and craft via Dropbox.

Edited January 12, 2017 by regex

[Numberyellow]

1 minute ago, regex said:

How do you handle orbital rendezvous without timewarp? That's like, a recipe for boredom.

Sorry, this sounds exceedingly boring for multiplayer in KSP.

Yeah, I'm kind of wondering what the real appeal of multiplayer really is in this game. Aside from griefing it all sounds pretty boring. I already (when I still actively played) sit on IRC and share images vis Imgur, and craft via Dropbox.

How do we handle it in real life?

Perhaps to some...However, when testing a new aircraft, it would probably be fun.

Unless the people you invite in, are griefing you, there wouldn't be any of that.

You know what's boring, and tedious? building a massive space station, or ground facility by yourself.

[regex]

1 minute ago, Numberyellow said:

How do we handle it in real life?

A game isn't real life. I have limited time to play a game and am not an actual astronaut. Therefore, timewarp should be a consideration, especially considering you can do it single-player.

How do you handle one person doing a trip to Duna, another a trip to Eeloo, and another farting around on Kerbin? Under your paradigm they should really only be building massive art projects in low orbit or flying a plane together. That seems quite limited in potential. What if everyone is interested in building infrastructure around the solar system? Maybe two people are assigned to Duna, two to Eve, two to Jool, etc... You can't do that without some method of handling timewarp.

1 minute ago, Numberyellow said:

You know what's boring, and tedious? building a massive space station, or ground facility by yourself.

vOv I guess multiplayer has some appeal for you then. I don't find it compelling in the least, even if it's to ruin someone's day.

[Numberyellow]

10 hours ago, regex said:

vOv I guess multiplayer has some appeal for you then. I don't find it compelling in the least.

That was kind of the point of the list.....it's things I'D like to see, that I think would be cool, or that would be useful TO ME.....not sure how you missed that. And it's fine if you don't see a use for it, nobody's saying you must agree.

Though, i find it hilariously ironic that you'd promote an event in your sig, that would actually benefit from the idea you're bashing.

[regex]

14 minutes ago, Numberyellow said:

the idea you're bashing.

Easy there, sport. If the consequences of the idea you're positing would result in long periods of doing nothing in a game or arbitrary restrictions on what can be done I see nothing wrong with claiming that it's a recipe for boredom. There's also nothing wrong with criticizing something I'm not interested in, most especially in a public suggestions forum and if it can potentially eat up an update that I would rather see go towards other developments, or even a better form of said feature; just because I don't care for playing KSP multiplayer doesn't mean I don't want it done right.

[Numberyellow]

1 minute ago, regex said:

Easy there, sport. If the consequences of the idea you're positing would result in long periods of doing nothing in a game or arbitrary restrictions on what can be done I see nothing wrong with claiming that it's a recipe for boredom. There's also nothing wrong with criticizing something I'm not interested in, most especially in a public suggestions forum and if it can potentially eat up an update that I would rather see go towards other developments, or even a better form of said feature; just because I don't care for playing KSP multiplayer doesn't mean I don't want it done right.

Still doesn't change that what i said was fact. The thing you're promoting would benefit from the multiplayer method i described....there's nothing wrong with criticizing something you have no interest in...doesn't change the fact that you are, actually, bashing the idea.

Just because you don't see the appeal in having multiple people working on the same project, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. It's just a game mode that you'd opt not to use.....just like i opt not to use the career mode, because it's a pointless game mode.

[regex]

7 hours ago, Numberyellow said:

Still doesn't change that what i said was fact. The thing you're promoting would benefit from the multiplayer method i described...

And it would also benefit from the DMP method described earlier. The difference is that the DMP method is much more flexible in terms of handling many people playing at once. The DMP method doesn't prevent everyone working on the same project but yours prevents everyone from working on many different projects all over the solar system at once, which is why I prefer it.

[Tr1gg3r]

Bet the garbage collection and stutter would be good on multi player

[Numberyellow]

10 minutes ago, regex said:

And it would also benefit from the DMP method described earlier. The difference is that the DMP method is much more flexible in terms of handling many people playing at once. The DMP method doesn't prevent everyone working on the same project but yours prevents everyone from working on many different projects all over the solar system at once, which is why I prefer it.

Only if you misunderstand MP as i'm envisioning it, no matter how well i explain it. Lemme try again, once more..

Here's what i'm picturing.. You, and a group of your friends decide you want to do some projects in a sandbox....let's call this group a clan.

So, you either host the game yourself, or you start it on a hosted server space. The game is private, it's only you, and invited parties...so no chance for random people to join out of nowhere, and make trouble. Now, you can configure a sandbox with whatever mods you need, and the people playing would need to have those mods as well. So you, and your friends, can work on whatever stuff you were going to do. Yes, you'd be locked to one celestial body at a time, but if you're all working on the same project, then there's no need to have your clan scattered about the star system. This is for you and your friends to do stuff in sandbox...not for you and your friends to co-op the career mode.

Toss in voice chat, and i think much fun could be had...imagine you and friends building ridiculous contraptions at the KSC, and having a good time, launching, and exploding, each other....sometimes just screwing around with stupid stuff can be fun. Alternatively, you could all bring your best fighter designs to the table, and have a massive dogfight, to see who's is the best.. Race to KSC2? race to the pole? drag race buggies down the runway?...is that a plane coming? oh shi..

 

Maybe it's not for everyone, but i could see a lot of people enjoying it.

[SmashingKirby148]

Meh, to me, KSP is already perfect the way it is right now <3

Any other things they start adding are extra treats.

[Numberyellow]

1 hour ago, SmashingKirby148 said:

Meh, to me, KSP is already perfect the way it is right now <3

Any other things they start adding are extra treats.

Fair enough. I think it's currently pretty much perfect. This is about making it MORE PERFECT™

[SmashingKirby148]

3 hours ago, Numberyellow said:

Fair enough. I think it's currently pretty much perfect. This is about making it MORE PERFECT™

But how can you have more perfect? Technically, perfect is having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. Basically, complete. If you want a more perfect KSP, then, by definition, it isn't actually perfect yet.

Although, I do agree with you. Extra features such as yours would be great, I just don't specifically need them at the moment.

[DualDesertEagle]

17 hours ago, Numberyellow said:

Yes, you'd be locked to one celestial body at a time, but if you're all working on the same project, then there's no need to have your clan scattered about the star system.

Actually, no, u wouldn't. Like I said before, in co-op (which is pretty much what u described) u could easily coordinate warping due to the low number of simultaneously playing ppl. Even if 3 of the players went to Eeloo while the other 3 went to Eve, I don't see a problem with setting it up in a way that the first ship to reach a maneuver node, an encounter or whatever the f**k stops the (global) time warp to do what needs to be done and then warp on to the next event. That may add a little more of a delay to the transfer of the other ship but also something to watch instead of simply sitting through the whole transfer, and I've already had some missions myself where I had about an hour and a half of time warping in total. So if ur not doing anything else while a long time warp is in progress with the option to watch the other ship doing their stuff between time warps u've at least got some entertainment on ur transfer.

[Numberyellow]

13 hours ago, SmashingKirby148 said:

But how can you have more perfect? Technically, perfect is having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be. Basically, complete. If you want a more perfect KSP, then, by definition, it isn't actually perfect yet.

Although, I do agree with you. Extra features such as yours would be great, I just don't specifically need them at the moment.

"more perfect", from a grammatical, and linguistic standpoint, is a joke... by definition, if something is "perfect", then that's that....sometimes, a joke is just a joke, lol. In my opinion, it's ALMOST perfect. there are still some things wrong with it..but most of them are minor things...at least from where i sit.

56 minutes ago, DualDesertEagle said:

Actually, no, u wouldn't. Like I said before, in co-op (which is pretty much what u described) u could easily coordinate warping due to the low number of simultaneously playing ppl. Even if 3 of the players went to Eeloo while the other 3 went to Eve, I don't see a problem with setting it up in a way that the first ship to reach a maneuver node, an encounter or whatever the f**k stops the (global) time warp to do what needs to be done and then warp on to the next event. That may add a little more of a delay to the transfer of the other ship but also something to watch instead of simply sitting through the whole transfer, and I've already had some missions myself where I had about an hour and a half of time warping in total. So if ur not doing anything else while a long time warp is in progress with the option to watch the other ship doing their stuff between time warps u've at least got some entertainment on ur transfer.

I dunno....watching someone else play sounds a bit boring...i mean, if there was voice chat, and the conversation was good, it might help pass the time...but again, i was just seeing this as a way for ppl to get together, and do things together. i suppose either version (yours and mine) are equally valid as potential models to base a MP mode on..

[DualDesertEagle]

5 hours ago, Numberyellow said:

 dunno....watching someone else play sounds a bit boring...i mean, if there was voice chat, and the conversation was good, it might help pass the time...but again, i was just seeing this as a way for ppl to get together, and do things together. i suppose either version (yours and mine) are equally valid as potential models to base a MP mode on..

More boring than watching the own ship doing nothing? Ok then, I'll take that back 

all jokes aside, what's a bit of even LESS boredom compared to not being restricted to the same mission? Or let's get away from the mission to the same planet for a second, what if 1 group builds a ship that is simple and whose purpose is just to get around in the system ur going to while the ship that the other group is building has a habitate and stuff like that, which just takes longer to build, so they can't take off at the same time.

now ship #1 can already start the transfer while ship#2 is just about to be finished. The time warp is stopped then so that the second ship can take off, then can be turned on again everytime ship#2 has finished an action until they're on their way too. Now tell me what u find more boring, sitting through ur own transfer with nothing to do or watching the other ship taking off, circularizing and what not until they're in their own transfer?

Edited January 14, 2017 by DualDesertEagle