Possible Solution to the Multiplayer Issue

[Enceos]

Sounds like Elite Dangerous style FTL warp.

[The_Rocketeer]

Just now, Enceos said:

Sounds like Elite Dangerous style FTL warp.

Yes, in the sense of speed, but no in the sense of directional control. You would have to plot in the route first by completing a regular manouvre, but you could then use your Elite Dangerous style FTL throttle to zoom towards the destination as fast (or slow) as you liked. This speed control would have no effect on your route, just on your progress along it.

[Enceos]

Bye bye the concept of transfer windows.

[The_Rocketeer]

Just now, Enceos said:

Bye bye the concept of transfer windows.

Yes, exactly.

Edit: but in MP, or in any game with timewarp as an option, how important are transfer windows anyway?

Edited April 22, 2017 by The_Rocketeer

[AlamoVampire]

This is the problem that just is but is not being realized: if all objects NOT IN THE WARP remain in a 1 second is 1 second time frame while I am moving faster and covering exponentially larger distances during each passing second my target, does not matter  what my target is, 

it

will

not

be

at 

my

targeted

destination!!!!

I will have traveled hundreds of thousands of kilometers in seconds while my target has gone only hundreds at MOST. The proposed "solution" simply does not work as imagined. In theory its a good idea but cant work in practice.

[Tex]

Just now, AlamoVampire said:

I will have traveled hundreds of thousands of kilometers in seconds while my target has gone only hundreds at MOST. The proposed "solution" simply does not work as imagined. In theory its a good idea but cant work in practice.

Yes, which is why I postulated that you would have to adjust the trajectory accordingly to actually get to the destination. It doesn't make it impossible, just needs a slight tweak in the flight plan.

[AlamoVampire]

@Tex Thats more than a slight tweak. 

It would as near as i can tell require completely new code to the game to cope with timeless timewarps. New code to predict two encounter points, one for normal time and one for your magic enhanced warps. Nodes are finicky at the best of times, adding in this level of complexity is ridiculous. Add in all the mods players have access to that deal with nodes like mechjeb, precise node and so on.  That would mean A: making mp stock only mandatory, which wouldnt fly, B: asking mod makers to add additional load to keeping these mods going, not sure how thatd go over or C making ALL such mods 100% stock, or D the option that I advocate: no multiplayer, as again: ksp =/= suitable to such a thing 

[Tex]

Well, of course adding multiplayer would require code changes. So would anybody else's proposals. This particular one is my take on it.

[Kaizen]

the planets move too

NVM

in my idea, the planets move too (sorry for double post)

[Tex]

7 minutes ago, Kaizen said:

the planets move too

NVM

in my idea, the planets move too (sorry for double post)

How do you mean? Did you post earlier or have a separate thread?

[Toastie_Buns]

Hey OP

Did you ever think about

*drumroll*

Quicksaves?

What happens when a player desyncs the server by loading a quicksave from 5 minutes ago?

[Alshain]

55 minutes ago, Toastie_Buns said:

Hey OP

Did you ever think about

*drumroll*

Quicksaves?

What happens when a player desyncs the server by loading a quicksave from 5 minutes ago?

Quicksaves and Reverts wouldn't be a thing in any multiplayer format.  You just have to get good or be prepared to deal with the consequences if you aren't.  Server operators may want to run slightly easier money profiles to deal with that unless they just want a hardcore server.

[Tex]

2 hours ago, Toastie_Buns said:

Hey OP

Did you ever think about

*drumroll*

Quicksaves?

What happens when a player desyncs the server by loading a quicksave from 5 minutes ago?

I didn't think about quicksaves, no, because "saving" isn't really a thing you can do in any multiplayer thing, ever. Unless you own the server, that is.

[IllyrianTheGreat]

On 22.04.2017 at 0:39 AM, 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?

What about turn based multiplayer?

We all start from day 1, each player have 15-20 minutes of real world time to make movement, docking, get to orbit etc etc. After that time game engine loads next day and puts all craft on new calculated locations.

[linuxgurugamer]

3 players, play time = 1/3.  Recipie for sleep or other disaster

[Tex]

30 minutes ago, IllyrianTheGreat said:

What about turn based multiplayer?

We all start from day 1, each player have 15-20 minutes of real world time to make movement, docking, get to orbit etc etc. After that time game engine loads next day and puts all craft on new calculated locations.

The problem with that is that I'm not sure how the timewarp factor would work in that system, not even mentioning that 20 minutes and then suddenly its an entire day later will inevitably cause huge frustrations. Interplanetary missions will still take many, many days to complete with that formula, and what happens if an intercept occurs during a time when a player can't be playing the game?

[Cucco-Master]

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Quicksaves and Reverts wouldn't be a thing in any multiplayer format.

But what happens when a player exits the game? Time would have to be frozen for them until they return so when they do, they would still be out of sync.

[Red Iron Crown]

2 hours ago, Alshain said:

Quicksaves and Reverts wouldn't be a thing in any multiplayer format.  You just have to get good or be prepared to deal with the consequences if you aren't.  Server operators may want to run slightly easier money profiles to deal with that unless they just want a hardcore server.

I haven't put a ton of thought into it, but couldn't quicksaves work in an asynchronous warp model? Might have to forbid it once a craft interacts with another, but up until then reverting would just be another out of sync craft, no? 

[Alshain]

20 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I haven't put a ton of thought into it, but couldn't quicksaves work in an asynchronous warp model? Might have to forbid it once a craft interacts with another, but up until then reverting would just be another out of sync craft, no? 

Maybe. I know DMP allows it (probably because it can't stop it) if the game is configured through Squad's settings to allow it, but if you do it, ghosts of the reverted craft tend to occur.  Before you know it you have a lot of junk around everywhere in some cases MIA kerbals.

32 minutes ago, Cucco-Master said:

But what happens when a player exits the game? Time would have to be frozen for them until they return so when they do, they would still be out of sync.

Why would time have to be frozen for them?  You shouldn't leave the game if your craft isn't in a pseudo-stable condition.  Time would move normally.

[322997am]

I think the DMP solution should be the option for big servers, but for like a 5 person server, I think it should be "everybody lands" solution.

[Tex]

Just now, 322997am said:

I think the DMP solution should be the option for big servers, but for like a 5 person server, I think it should be "everybody lands" solution.

"Everybody lands" solution?

[322997am]

Just now, Tex said:

"Everybody lands" solution?

Well someone wants to warp. Let's say 1 person wants to warp, and 2 are flying planes, and 2 are docking a space station. The plane guys land, the space station people finish docking and then the guy warps.

[Wjolcz]

On 24/04/2017 at 11:26 PM, 322997am said:

Well someone wants to warp. Let's say 1 person wants to warp, and 2 are flying planes, and 2 are docking a space station. The plane guys land, the space station people finish docking and then the guy warps.

This would be the best solution, I think. There's one timeline and everyone warps when everyone agrees to do so.

[John FX]

52 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

This would be the best solution, I think. There's one timeline and everyone warps when everyone agrees to do so.

It is the only way I have read that seems like it would work, someone wants to warp, they request, when every player accepts, warp happens until one player needs to do something. Of course if one player is doing multiple mun missions and another is going to Eeloo the latter player will be very bored and may not ever control their craft again.

[razark]

1 minute ago, John FX said:

Of course if one player is doing multiple mun missions and another is going to Eeloo the latter player will be very bored and may not ever control their craft again.

This is exactly why I think any multiplayer KSP will need to be small (3-5 players maximum), and the people will most likely be doing related tasks (everyone working on a station or building a Munbase).  Having one player doing something that requires a lot of timewarp and another doing something that requires no warping makes me wonder why they're doing it in multiplayer together.