Possible Solution to the Multiplayer Issue

[pandaman]

Interesting idea.

Probably not the best solution, and it may well turn out to not be practical for many reasons, but well worth bouncing around anyway.

Just because an idea may turn out to not be viable doesn't mean it's not worth discussing in the first place.  As that discussion could spawn an idea, or contribute to a solution,  that does work.

[Kaizen]

If anyone wanted to make multiplayer for KSP, the warping is a huge problem. Because:

1. The planets and moons will move too.

2. You will have to sync the planetary positions somehow.

3. You also have to sync player positions.

My solution is:

Say someone is going to Jool and warps 10000x to do so. The server then waits until the warp is finished (maybe with a special server signal) and the ship (to the other players) moves to Jool for example. If someone else is going to Jool and the planet moves, their position is updated so they don't see anything. This happens with all players.

 

Please reply with any problems you find, and i'll try to find a solution.

[Tex]

8 hours ago, Alshain said:

But that isn't space travel.  That isn't how space travel works.  You don't aim for where the object is now, you aim for where it is going to be when you get there.

KSP is meant to teach how space travel works, not how Stargates, Warp Drives, and Mass Relays work.  If you start changing that, it's a complete and total work of fiction.  It simply corrupts the core of what KSP is.  If you want magic space travel, Elite Dangerous is a great game.  You might also check out the Strike Suit series, and Evachron Mercenary.

Do remember though, I have repeatedly said that is not the point of Non-Time Time-Warp. Yes, it is unrealistic, it is not able to be utilized by real spacecrafts, but it doesn't change the entire game. It's one aspect of it- the multiplayer. I'm not proposing completely eliminating time-warping, because time-warping is a brilliant method to overcome what would be the most boring part of spaceflight. In fact, one could reasonably propose an argument that actual time-warping in game "is not how space travel works" and should be eliminated, because, as you propose:

Quote

KSP is meant to teach how space travel works, not how Stargates, Warp Drives, and Mass Relays work. 

I'm not attempting to change the game into anything else. I'm attempting to propose a solution to having multiplayer work.

 

 

[Alshain]

7 minutes ago, Tex said:

Do remember though, I have repeatedly said that is not the point of Non-Time Time-Warp. Yes, it is unrealistic, it is not able to be utilized by real spacecrafts, but it doesn't change the entire game. It's one aspect of it- the multiplayer. I'm not proposing completely eliminating time-warping, because time-warping is a brilliant method to overcome what would be the most boring part of spaceflight. In fact, one could reasonably propose an argument that actual time-warping in game "is not how space travel works" and should be eliminated, because, as you propose:

I'm not attempting to change the game into anything else. I'm attempting to propose a solution to having multiplayer work.

 

 

But it's not multiplayer of KSP.  I want multiplayer of KSP, not some other game entirely which is what you are proposing here.  There are other possibilities that wouldn't destroy the gameplay to make it happen.

[Tex]

Just now, Alshain said:

But it's not multiplayer of KSP.  I want multiplayer of KSP, not some other game entirely which is what you are proposing here.  There are other possibilities that wouldn't destroy the gameplay to make it happen.

I'm still repeatedly confused as to what the disconnect seems to be... It's not multiplayer of KSP? But this is an idea for multiplayer in KSP, specifically so. And I've stated before this is only one of many possible solutions. I do not understand how this somehow changes KSP into not being KSP. Everything about this idea is within KSP. I have agreed that yes, it is not realistic. "wormhole warping" isn't a pretty solution, which I have also agreed to. But do you agree that it is a possible solution, however unappealing? Because that is all I am trying to propose.

[Tex]

Can you explain a little further? Are you meaning to propose that once warps are done, every object instantaneously moves to the position it would be in after the warp was done?

 

EDIT: After some deliberation, the team went ahead and moved this thread into Suggestions/Development Discussion because of its nature as a discussion.

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, Tex said:

I'm still repeatedly confused as to what the disconnect seems to be... It's not multiplayer of KSP? But this is an idea for multiplayer in KSP, specifically so. And I've stated before this is only one of many possible solutions. I do not understand how this somehow changes KSP into not being KSP. Everything about this idea is within KSP. I have agreed that yes, it is not realistic. "wormhole warping" isn't a pretty solution, which I have also agreed to. But do you agree that it is a possible solution, however unappealing? Because that is all I am trying to propose.

Because it removes realistic space travel, and that is KSP.  Is it still Tetris if you remove all the straight pieces that let you score a Tetris?  Is it still Grand Theft Auto if you remove all the cars?

You are removing realistic spaceflight from a realistic spaceflight game and substituting it with fictional space flight.  That makes it a different game.  No, I do not agree this is a possible solution to multiplayer KSP... because it would no longer be KSP.

Edited April 21, 2017 by Alshain

[Tex]

Just now, Alshain said:

Because it removes realistic space travel, and that is KSP.  Is it still Tetris if you remove all the straight pieces that let you score a Tetris?  Is it still Grand Theft Auto if you remove all the cars?

You are removing realistic spaceflight from a realistic spaceflight game and substituting it with fictional space flight.  That makes it a different game.

Do you agree that it is a possible solution?

And what this proposition is is not such a fundamental change. No orbital mechanics are being altered on either side of this warp, and physics still works here. It is not a matter of removing cars from Grand Theft Auto, it is modding a car within Grand Theft Auto to move ten times its stock maximum speed. Realistic? No, of course not. But is it still Grand theft Auto? Of course it is.

[Alshain]

Just now, Tex said:

Do you agree that it is a possible solution?

And what this proposition is is not such a fundamental change. No orbital mechanics are being altered on either side of this warp, and physics still works here. It is not a matter of removing cars from Grand Theft Auto, it is modding a car within Grand Theft Auto to move ten times its stock maximum speed. Realistic? No, of course not. But is it still Grand theft Auto? Of course it is.

No, it is not a possible solution.

And yes it is a fundamental change.  Orbital mechanics are altered.  You said you would no longer be aiming for where the object is going to be when you get there, that is orbital mechanics.  Furthermore when you wormhole over to these places you are no longer in the same place you would have been in realistic spaceflight.  You might be orbiting the same body but you are not where you should be because the body is not where it should be.  That is orbital mechanics.  You are suggesting a fundamental change to orbital mechanics.

[Tex]

2 minutes ago, Alshain said:

No, it is not a possible solution.

And yes it is a fundamental change.  Orbital mechanics are altered.  You said you would no longer be aiming for where the object is going to be when you get there, that is orbital mechanics.  Furthermore when you wormhole over to these places you are no longer in the same place you would have been in realistic spaceflight.  You might be orbiting the same body but you are not where you should be because the body is not where it should be.  That is orbital mechanics.  You are suggesting a fundamental change to orbital mechanics.

Ah... I see a point here, about the bodies not being where they are supposed to be. The bodies actually would be where they were meant to be, because time is not being altered. The only thing being affected by Non-Time Time-Warp is the vessel itself, no other planet or moon is, not even other players. Time is not being disrupted, and the warp only affects the controlled vessel. Is this the part that was confusing, perhaps?

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, Tex said:

Ah... I see a point here, about the bodies not being where they are supposed to be. The bodies actually would be where they were meant to be, because time is not being altered. The only thing being affected by Non-Time Time-Warp is the vessel itself, no other planet or moon is, not even other players. Time is not being disrupted, and the warp only affects the controlled vessel. Is this the part that was confusing, perhaps?

It's not confusing, I understand what you are saying, but that is fundamental change to the game.  Any attempt to move the vessel without moving everything else is a breakdown in the physics relationship between the physical objects.  They no longer behave in a scientifically predictable way.  That physics simulation is the whole point of KSP.  Without it, you don't have KSP.

Even with the flaws that KSP has, you still have scientific predictability.  Patched conics is not perfect, it's not how the real thing works.  However, at least it is close and it is predictable mathematically and scientifically.  However craft suddenly jumping from one place to another, that is not predictable.  It's chaos, not science, and it's not KSP.

[Tex]

Just now, Alshain said:

It's not confusing, I understand what you are saying, but that is fundamental change to the game.  Any attempt to move the vessel without moving everything else is a breakdown in the physics relationship between the physical objects.  They no longer behave in a scientifically predictable way.  That physics simulation is the whole point of KSP.  Without it, you don't have KSP.

I agree that KSP's realistic representation of physics is what makes the game so amazing, why I fell in love with it. That's why I'm proposing this idea- I'm not attempting to distort the physics or alter how the game works, that was never the intention. However, by warping as I have mentioned, merely moving impossibly fast along the already-established orbital trajectories made by the vessel during burns, the vessel actually does move in a scientifically predictable way. In fact, I would say that this method of warp-driving or wormhole-warping or whatever else you want to call it, is a more realistic and feasible interpretation of teleportation or using wormholes than has been used by other games and works of fiction.

Using the Non-Time Time-Warp during just a standard orbit of Kerbin would not allow the vessel infinite propulsion and allow them to teleport magically to, say, another star system. What it would allow the vessel to do, the only physics-breaky part of the whole affair, is move along its orbital path faster. Time would not be affected- a day on Kerbin is still a Kerbin day. The Mun wouldn't change its orbit or speed, and nor would another player. Instead of only being able to orbit about once or one and a half times in a Kerbin hour, however, the player that is warping could choose to orbit once, twice, four times, a hundred, or a hundred thousand times in the exact same period of time. It's not a propulsion system, unless you count scooting the vessel along on-rails as a propulsion system (which could be argued for). You would eventually reach the exact same point waiting thirty minutes as you would warping for twenty seconds, the only difference is that, to us, the player, it would take twenty seconds, and not an hour.

Perhaps this is a better explanation?

[Alshain]

7 minutes ago, Tex said:

I agree that KSP's realistic representation of physics is what makes the game so amazing, why I fell in love with it. That's why I'm proposing this idea- I'm not attempting to distort the physics or alter how the game works, that was never the intention. However, by warping as I have mentioned, merely moving impossibly fast along the already-established orbital trajectories made by the vessel during burns, the vessel actually does move in a scientifically predictable way. In fact, I would say that this method of warp-driving or wormhole-warping or whatever else you want to call it, is a more realistic and feasible interpretation of teleportation or using wormholes than has been used by other games and works of fiction.

But it isn't predictable at all.  Lets say we were playing that game.  I'm at my computer, you are at yours.  We don't have discord, we aren't in the same room, you can't see or hear me.   I have a craft in orbit and you are watching it and also have all the velocity and orbital characteristics.

Tell me exactly when my craft will cross in the the Mun's sphere of influence.  If this had been KSP you could mathematically calculate when that would happen, I can even tell you exactly where it will happen.  If you burn your engines I can tell you exactly how that changed your trajectory.

However in your game you would have to predict when I am going to hit a button to magically transport me to it.  Something that is impossible (unless you are the CIA, I hear they can read minds).  I'm sorry, but it does not move in a scientifically predictable way, it moves in a very chaotic way.  The movement is left to a human rather than science and by definition, human action is chaotic.  It's not more realistic that other games because it's not realistic at all, in any possible way.

7 minutes ago, Tex said:

Using the Non-Time Time-Warp during just a standard orbit of Kerbin would not allow the vessel infinite propulsion and allow them to teleport magically to, say, another star system. What it would allow the vessel to do, the only physics-breaky part of the whole affair, is move along its orbital path faster. Time would not be affected- a day on Kerbin is still a Kerbin day. The Mun wouldn't change its orbit or speed, and nor would another player. Instead of only being able to orbit about once or one and a half times in a Kerbin hour, however, the player that is warping could choose to orbit once, twice, four times, a hundred, or a hundred thousand times in the exact same period of time. It's not a propulsion system, unless you count scooting the vessel along on-rails as a propulsion system (which could be argued for). You would eventually reach the exact same point waiting thirty minutes as you would warping for twenty seconds, the only difference is that, to us, the player, it would take twenty seconds, and not an hour.

Perhaps this is a better explanation?

 

No, you wouldn't reach exactly the same point.  You would reach a completely different point.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.  Everything is in motion, if it takes me 3 days to get somewhere, that's 3 days worth of orbital movement on everything.  If it takes me 3 seconds to get somewhere that should have taken 3 days, that 3 seconds of orbital motion instead of 3 days.  You are not where you should be, and there is no way to predict that you were going to be where you ended up.

I don't know how to explain it simpler.  Removing an object from the solar systems orbital physics simulation, even for a moment, is game breaking.  That's it, there is no argument to that.

[Tex]

51 minutes ago, Alshain said:

But it isn't predictable at all. 

...

 

No, you wouldn't reach exactly the same point.  You would reach a completely different point.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.  Everything is in motion, if it takes me 3 days to get somewhere, that's 3 days worth of orbital movement on everything.  If it takes me 3 seconds to get somewhere that should have taken 3 days, that 3 seconds of orbital motion instead of 3 days.  You are not where you should be, and there is no way to predict that you were going to be where you ended up.

I don't know how to explain it simpler.  Removing an object from the solar systems orbital physics simulation, even for a moment, is game breaking.  That's it, there is no argument to that.

How would it not? It is moving on-rails faster. That's the idea summed up in a sentence. It is moving along the exact same orbital path, but once a player hits the warp button to start the warp, they simply move along their orbit faster. I'm just seeing a disconnect between what you see as my idea and what I see it as. Yes, the math would no longer work, because the vessel would move impossibly fast. It is not possible to double the speed of an object and have the orbit remain the same in real life. This suggestion, however, is for a video game. It would not be game-breaking, because this suggestion is meant to retain game playablity for players in multiplayer. It would be math-breaking. This suggestion in a nutshell is moving on-rails faster. No intentional physics breaks, no orbital shenanigans. I think we're attempting to argue two completely different points here, that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Quote

You are not where you should be

And for that point, I agree. You wouldn't be where you should be after three seconds, but what is affected other than the vessel's position in space? All it is is moving a vessel to a different point in the exact same orbit. I'm repeating this point because that is all I'm trying to say.

[AlamoVampire]

Only way warping works as far as i can tell is, everything is accelerated from orbital mechanics to time itself. Using this understanding lets look at removing time from the equation.

Let us say I am one of the crew members of Expedition 51 that launched Thursday to the ISS as my mission in KSP. Lets say we want to warp to catch up to dock. Well with out time as part of the equation what is being achieved exactly? All ive done is sped up. The stations temporal reference has NOT changed in relation to me. I just completed 3 or so FULL orbits in seconds but the ISS did not. 

You cannot accelerate a ship with out accelerating orbital mechanics. You cannot accelerate orbital mechanics in a predictable way without accelerating time. You accelerate time for one person with out accelerating time for all persons. And you cannot accelerate time for all persons with out causing issues. Thus you cant have warping in a mp ksp, thus making ksp dull. 

Just say no to mp in ksp honestly

[Tex]

20 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Let us say I am one of the crew members of Expedition 51 that launched Thursday to the ISS as my mission in KSP. Lets say we want to warp to catch up to dock. Well with out time as part of the equation what is being achieved exactly? All ive done is sped up. The stations temporal reference has NOT changed in relation to me. I just completed 3 or so FULL orbits in seconds but the ISS did not. 

If I understood this correctly, I respond with my earlier comments that it would require a different trajectory. You would not seek an intercept, per se, you would aim for where the ISS would be. However, because it wouldn't have gravity on the order of the Moon/Mun, you would get into a nearly-identical orbit to match the speed, then warp to match to near the station's location. 

[Vince_K]

maybe a stupid question...but..instead of time warp,why not just cut the scene when nothing happend and reload the game at a pre selected time in future for both players? is it possible?

[Tex]

9 minutes ago, Vince_K said:

maybe a stupid question...but..instead of time warp,why not just cut the scene when nothing happend and reload the game at a pre selected time in future for both players? is it possible?

That could definitely be an option, one I've heard a few times before. The 'Democratic Approach,' as I shall henceforth call it. It would definitely keep things nice and tidy, as well as make players actually have to calculate how long they'd need to spend in warp. The one big issue that I think the Democratic Approach has is that some players might not be able to/willing to warp for extended periods of time, which could get frustrating and cause friction between players. It is actually a good idea, but forces cooperation. Some players might just want to do their own thing at a given time.

[W. Kerman]

How about, instead of adding multiplayer, just make it easier to share save-files. Like really, built seamlessly into the game level save-file sharing?

[Tex]

9 minutes ago, W. Kerman said:

How about, instead of adding multiplayer, just make it easier to share save-files. Like really, built seamlessly into the game level save-file sharing?

That's another good option, and indeed I think that it should be added as well. Multiplayer, though, is an addition that's been much-discussed and wanted for quite some time. Imagine building actual rockets and spaceships with a friend and then blowing them up together in real time 

[Vince_K]

3 minutes ago, Tex said:

Some players might just want to do their own thing at a given time.

if you think like this...play solo...Anyways, I don't think  that a multiplayer KSP can be play by 10 people at the same time...maybe 3 or 4? You don't have choice to cooperate.Or why not just controle one caracter in a senario? to play, you need an engeiner who controle the vab and build the craft and make fuel transfer...this kind of thing...a scientis who have science to do and controle the com and the scan...and a pilot who....pilot? many thing can be done... just think outside the box  it will be cool to make a mun landing in coop. And if you are in the same ship, there are no more time warp probleme...

[AlamoVampire]

@Tex you read what I wrote correctly, but i think you misinterpret what I said. If you take the time function of time warp out, you are forced to remove it from the entire system. Kerbin, its moons, the entire solar system, every object in orbit around the sun. If I accelerate myself via some magic warp, which is in essence what you are suggesting, it makes 0 difference where I aim. My target simply will not be there when I arrive. I was accelerated alone. My target remained in its time contiuum and did not go on rails like you see in the game right now. THAT is the issue at hand. You cannot warp 1 object w/out warping ALL objects at the same velocity in terms of chronological speed or some value of velocity of meters per second.

It simply cannot be done in a way that doesnt break physics wide open and invite division by 0. This is but one reason why multiplayer for KSP isnt a suitable option. From time constraints <my launch window for some transfer, your maneuver to say another player trying to land on Dres <<yay dres awareness>> someone or all persons will lose something> to any number of ways folks can troll, to deliberate collisions with stations, to messing with comsats to who knows what. KSP is one game where multiplayer simply isnt a good idea. Now, that said, it should be noted I love multiplayer aspects when it makes sense, like BF1 or MWO or FFXIVARR but, in a game like KSP, its like trying to use a water rocket to reach Eeloo and back. Not practicle or really a good idea.

Edited April 22, 2017 by AlamoVampire

[razark]

1 hour ago, AlamoVampire said:

My target remained in its time contiuum...

No, all objects are still in the same timeframe.  This is NOT timewarp. 

(@Tex, perhaps that's why people are confused about it?  Maybe call it something else, but never refer to it as timewarp?)

 

Your ship is moved along it's own rail at a higher rate than it moves by itself.

For example, imagine a ship moving in a straight line at 10 km per minute.

At 1 minute, it's traveled 10 km.  At 2 minutes, 20 km.  At 3, 30 km. and so forth.

The Mun, Minmus, Jool, Joe's space station, Emily's capsule, and John's mothership are unaffected.  They experience 1, 2, or three minutes of time passing.  Your ship?  It also experiences the exact same three minutes passing.

 

Now, we turn on magicwarp at 2x.

At 1 minute, it's traveled 20km.  At 2 minutes, 40 km. 3 minutes, 60 km. The Mun, Minmus, Jool, Joe's space station, Emily's capsule, and John's mothership are unaffected.  They experience 1, 2, or three minutes of time passing.  The same as your ship.

Let's up the magicwarp to 10x: At 1 minute, it's traveled 100km.  At 2 minutes, 200 km. 3 minutes, 300 km. The Mun, Minmus, Jool, Joe's space station, Emily's capsule, and John's mothership are unaffected.  They experience 1, 2, or three minutes of time passing. The same as your ship.

To the physics engine, however, it's still moving at 10 km/m.  It interacts with the world for all purposes except it's location as though it is moving at 10 km/m.  If it impacts a stationary object, it impacts with the force of a 10km/m object.  It, and every object in the game, is all contained in a single, shared timeframe.

Let's say you're going to the Mun.  It's going to take you an 10 minutes to get there, so you turn on magicwarp at 10x.  You now travel to the Mun in 1 minute.  "But, but, but," I hear you cry, "the Mun won't be there!"  Well, yeah.  So when you set up your maneuver, you don't aim for where the Mun would be in 10 minutes.  Aim for where it will be in the 1 minute you actually spend traveling.

 

 

And yes, it breaks the physics of the game.  Of course, once you stop warping, the physics are back to where they were, and you can get on with playing.  Any multiplayer system is going to be a set of tradeoffs.

[AlamoVampire]

@razark That's the problem. If all objects retain the same temporal root, then all things, ships, planets, everything warp in sync. Nothing breaks. But, as I keep trying to point out: you cannot warp in ksp with out said warp hitting everything in the same way. I can't warp ahead and catch dres if dres isn't warping in time (meaning in lockstep with me, my tempo and its tempo moving as one) with me. If time is subtracted out, then orbital mechanics, physics everything leaves as well.

[Alshain]

@razark We aren't confused about it.  It's just a horrifically terrible idea. I'd love multiplayer someday, but if it is this I'd rather not see it at all than corrupt KSP like that.  This is worse than no multiplayer at all

I applaud Tex for trying to come up with solutions, but this isn't one.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Alshain