Possible Solution to the Multiplayer Issue

[Talavar]

Just now, KOCOUR said:

2-5 player coop, only admin can timewarp, timewarp aplies to all.  Then ill buy a new copy of KSP for my wife, and we´ll play together. Happines ensured. 

 

 DMP handles the time problem. See last post. They simply need to apply it to the default game so it removes the movement issues.

[razark]

20 minutes ago, Talavar said:

DMP handles the time problem.

Except you explicitly said it allows for paradox in your post.

People keep saying "DMP HAS SOLVED ALL THE PROBLEMS!", but keep ignoring that it hasn't, really.

[Talavar]

1 minute ago, razark said:

Except you explicitly said it allows for paradox in your post.

People keep saying "DMP HAS SOLVED ALL THE PROBLEMS!", but keep ignoring that it hasn't, really.

 Yes it has.. with the time paradoxes.. they only have to implement the lines of code I stated to make it solid. it stops all problems. Go back and read my previous post.. I edited it to help make sense out of it.

 In short, It can be done, and it can exist without time paradoxes. I have enough faith in Squad's ability to actually implement it. We all know they're talented. My couple thousand hours in KSP can attest to that.. lol

[KOCOUR]

37 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 DMP handles the time problem. See last post. They simply need to apply it to the default game so it removes the movement issues.

I tried DMP with some blokes i met on the internet, i wasnt impressed. DMP is full of issues. For example you cant see other players vessel on launchpad untill he lauches, and then you start seeing it when it is about 100m above the LP,  i usualy saw other players craft exploding while they reported they are ascending ok, docking two payer wessels was imposible cause each see the  crafts oriented differently, etc.

Edited February 20, 2018 by KOCOUR

[razark]

8 minutes ago, Talavar said:

Yes it has..

No it hasn't.

Spoiler

10 PRINT "YES IT HAS"
20 PRINT "NO IT HASN'T"
30 GOTO 10

 

 

10 minutes ago, Talavar said:

Go back and read my previous post..

Very well, let's go take a look:

46 minutes ago, Talavar said:

The only problems you can encounter is if you're docking to something that someone is docked to in the future, then try to time jump to their timeline.. however, this is easily fixed by one line of code stating "This node is currently occupied in the future, timewarp will be unavailable until you undock again"
   The other version of this is if you are docking with something that was destroyed in teh future... Which you would get a similar message stating that it was destroyed in the future, and you cannot time warp until you undock from it.

So, events in the timeline's future affect what can happen in the timeline's past.  Violating causality.  Which is paradox.

 

But yeah.  If you ignore the parts DMP hasn't solved, then saying DMP has solved everything is valid, I guess.

[Spricigo]

24 minutes ago, Talavar said:

In short, It can be done, and it can exist without time paradoxes.

Of course it can be done without paradoxes when everyone warp at the same rate. This is a sacrifice of gameplay for realism reason.

We may instead have a system with paradoxes, a sacrifice of realism for gameplay reasons.

 

 

 

 

[Talavar]

40 minutes ago, razark said:

No it hasn't.

  Reveal hidden contents

10 PRINT "YES IT HAS"
20 PRINT "NO IT HASN'T"
30 GOTO 10

 

 

Very well, let's go take a look:

So, events in the timeline's future affect what can happen in the timeline's past.  Violating causality.  Which is paradox.

 

But yeah.  If you ignore the parts DMP hasn't solved, then saying DMP has solved everything is valid, I guess.

 No, if you can't time warp when docked to it, there can be no paradox.. that's exactly what I was saying.. and I said "If they implement those 2 lines of code, it would make it solid" .. But if you ignore what I said, and then say what you want, I guess that makes it valid, I guess. Double edged sword.. You just don't want it to work. pretty simple argument..  anyway, I'm out .. peace.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Talavar

[Spricigo]

1 minute ago, Talavar said:

 No, if you can't time warp when docked to it, there can be no paradox..

That is exactly what the paradoxes is.  Since player1 did something in the future (in this case the simple fact of be at that time) player2 is affected.

 

[razark]

4 minutes ago, Talavar said:

You just don't want it to work.

You explicitly said it doesn't work:

1 hour ago, Talavar said:

The only problems you can encounter is if you're docking to something that someone is docked to in the future, then try to time jump to their timeline..

So there is a problem in the way DMP implements it*, as made obvious from you next statement:

1 hour ago, Talavar said:

this is easily fixed by one line of code

If there's no problem, there would be no need for a fix.

And your fix is to allow future events to affect what happens in the present.  So, paradox.

 

11 minutes ago, Talavar said:

No, if you can't time warp when docked to it, there can be no paradox..

There are plenty of way to invoke a paradox without timewarping while docked to something.

 

 

*Which leads to the question of what does happen if A docks to a docking port at T+5 hours, and then B attempts to dock to the same port at T+0 hours?

[Talavar]

3 hours ago, razark said:

You explicitly said it doesn't work:

So there is a problem in the way DMP implements it*, as made obvious from you next statement:

If there's no problem, there would be no need for a fix.

And your fix is to allow future events to affect what happens in the present.  So, paradox.

 

There are plenty of way to invoke a paradox without timewarping while docked to something.

 

 

*Which leads to the question of what does happen if A docks to a docking port at T+5 hours, and then B attempts to dock to the same port at T+0 hours?

Greenfire actually is correct. Just move to his comment... At this point you simply need to try DMP.. making arguments about something, while having no experience with it, is pointless. You'll answer all your own questions in one sitting with a buddy.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Talavar

[Greenfire32]

16 hours ago, razark said:

How did they solve the paradox issue?

Oh, I see.  They didn't.

In that case, " Time warp's solved. 100%." is wrong.  What you meant to say was: "DMP handles timewarp in a manner that I approve of."

But I'll play, too:  I already posted the single, solitary, correct way to do it, so everyone must now agree that it's correct and the discussion is closed! 

How's that?

Disregarding the snark, re-read that bit of me you quoted. It's barely a paradox in that a physical representation of your ship exists in other's space-time, but "you" do not (unless synced). Which means that unless you do something with your craft, it doesn't count as have actually happened. There are no "alternate timeline" paradoxes.

If you're in the "future" other players will merely see your craft orbiting whatever planet you were orbiting before you entered warp. If they sync to you, that "copy" of "you" is deleted from their space-time and where you are at in the given moment is what they will now see. As long as you remain synced, you can then interact in real time. But the second either of you warps again, you'll be in separate space-times and cant touch each other until you re-sync. And again, once you warp, the "copy" of other players are deleted. The server doesn't fill up with 1234567890987654 copies of the same craft. It's a bit like how KSP has the 25km physics bubble. If it's not in the bubble, it doesn't exist.

It's technically a paradox, but not really. It can't affect you in any way to have someone mess with your "past" and you can't influence their "future." And there's only ever 1 copy of you at a given time and it's constantly deleted and refreshed whenever you warp. Nobody can break solar panels off your craft in your "past" and all of a sudden you don't have them in your "present." That's not how it works. Not at all.

Honestly, just play DMP if you haven't. Seeing it in action makes a whole lot more sense than I can explain it in words. The issue of time warp, specifically, is solved.

There are other issues with DMP (like how it calculates movement or how there's a bug where if you revert flight, sometimes your craft's "copy" wont' get deleted) but time warp, itself, isn't one of them.
-----
But hey, if you think it's a better system to sit around for 6 hours real-time while traveling to the mun because 1 player went AFK and now nobody can warp because the server requires X amount of willing warpers, or if you think warping every 2 seconds because everyone will be requesting warp at different times is great, go right ahead. Can't wait to travel for 3 months real time to Duna or never go anywhere because I'm trying to dock in LKO but my vote to not time warp is being overruled by all the other players. That sounds fun...

DMP's method works. It's not nearly as "bad" as you claim it to be, and we actually get to play the game. It's not really a matter of "I like this method and I don't like this method," it's more a matter of "which method will allow the game to be played."

Edited February 20, 2018 by Greenfire32

[razark]

20 minutes ago, Talavar said:

If your docking port is taken up in the future, you simply can't dock to it, because if you advance in time you'll be in the same position.  you simply have to dock to a different port, or wait till that person undocks in the future, taking turns.

This means that an event in the future can affect the past.  This is paradox, this is exactly what I am talking about, and this is exactly what I am opposed to.  You may find it acceptable, however that does not mean it does not exist.

20 minutes ago, Talavar said:

your trying to make it seem more complicated than it is.....

No, I'm making it as complicated as it needs to be to show that DMP has not solved the timewarp issue 100%.  You seem to be having a hard time understanding that what you propose as a solution is objectionable to some of us.

 

5 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

It's barely a paradox...
There are no "alternate timeline" paradoxes.

Alternate timelines?  Maybe, that could be debated.  The main paradox is a violation of causality.

7 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Nobody can break solar panels off your craft in your "past" and all of a sudden you don't have them in your "present." That's not how it works. Not at all.

And this is paradoxical.  If something happens to a craft in the past, it should be reflected in the future.  If something happens in the future, it should not affect the past.

8 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

The issue of time warp, specifically, is solved.

If it's "solved" in a way that allows paradox, then I do not consider it solved.

 

As for your opposition to my scheme, I addressed that already.  Small number of players, admins with the power to kick people, and people actually playing together instead of using KSP to chat while playing alone.  Of course, no one's pointed out the problem with that, I just keep getting told that "DMP is the ONE AND ONLY answer!", even though I've explained repeatedly why it does not satisfy me.

[Greenfire32]

1 hour ago, razark said:

If something happens to a craft in the past, it should be reflected in the future.  If something happens in the future, it should not affect the past.

Sure, except that once you time warp you no longer exist in their universe. The only thing left behind (from the view point of the other players) is a copy. And it's a copy that gets deleted once the player who was viewing said copy syncs to you. Only then do you exist for them again.

The reason why it does this is to prevent reckless trolling while also "populating" the universe (what's the point of multiplayer if it isn't...multiplayer...). You can still have trolling and you can still experience disasters caused by other players, but it must happen in a synced universe.

How fun would it be to fly your happy little butt all the way to Eeloo only to discover that once you exit time warp, some joker crashed your ship 10 minutes ago and you instantly explode? I would argue not fun at all. So go ahead and blow up that copy of me. I'm actually at Eeloo safe and sound.

Having your past crafts be viewable copies fixes this. And while yes it's "technically" a paradox from our real life point of view, it really isn't from a gameplay point of view.

See, I think the problem here is you're having trouble separating your actual point of view (from behind the keyboard) from that of what's happening to your Kerbal's point of view. Their "present" is not and never will be your "present" and their past doesn't matter. The only thing that can alter the state of your kerbals is what is happening in their "present" (you, "the player," don't matter).

It's a bit timey whimey, but honestly just play DMP. It makes a huge load of sense once you see it in action.

[pandaman]

@Talavar thanks for your informative response. 

From that it does appear that DMP, whilst not having 'solved' the paradox/timewarp problem as such, have got a half decent work around.

I personally am not much of a multiplayer type in any computer game, not just KSP, but i can see the appeal of multiplayer and would be very pleased to see it in stock if done well.

I still think, personally, that the 'all warp together' approach is the best option for stock. Mainly due to the paradox/timewarp problem not being an issue at all. And also because there would (i imagine) be less chance of other bugs, problems and anomalies, like those you described with DMP, arising.  A mod can be 'excused' far more easily than a stock implementation after all.

[razark]

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

Sure, except that once you time warp you no longer exist in their universe.

Yes.  And that does not resolve the issue with paradox.

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

The reason why it does this is to prevent reckless trolling...

Another solution: don't play with trolls.  Paradoxical timewarp is not the only solution.

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

Having your past crafts be viewable copies fixes this. And while yes it's "technically" a paradox from our real life point of view, it really isn't from a gameplay point of view.

How is, in the game universe, having events that occurred in the past not having occurred in the future not a paradox in the game timeline?

1 hour ago, Greenfire32 said:

Their "present" is not and never will be your "present" and their past doesn't matter. The only thing that can alter the state of your kerbals is what is happening in their "present" (you, "the player," don't matter).

Past doesn't matter?  How did a ship get into orbit?  By launching at some point in the past.  If there was no launch in the past, the ship cannot be in orbit in the present.  If events that happened in the past turn out to not have happened, then it is a paradox.

 

I'm not saying DMP's approach doesn't "work", I'm saying I do approve of a method that allows paradox.

[Greenfire32]

1 hour ago, razark said:

that does not resolve the issue with paradox.

Yes. It. Does.

Your timeline is the only one that matters to you. Nobody can influence it in any way unless they're synced up to you. This is true for every single player. There is no "master timeline" that everyone must adhere to.

The second you warp, you leave everyone else's space-time. You become a ghost to them. You are nothing in their universe. You don't exist for them. The only evidence you were ever anywhere in their space-time is an empty vessel that no longer matters to you. But in your timeline, you exist as you always have. I honestly have no idea how to simplify this any further. If you cant understand this, then this conversation will drag on and on and on and on until the end of time itself.

1 hour ago, razark said:

Another solution: don't play with trolls.  Paradoxical timewarp is not the only solution.

Have....have you ever played an online game? Not saying that one wouldn't be able to take it upon themselves to play strictly with friends, but "ignore half of everyone you see" isn't a solution. By this logic, I should just never play any multiplayer game ever.

1 hour ago, razark said:

How is, in the game universe, having events that occurred in the past not having occurred in the future not a paradox in the game timeline?

Because as I've said over and over again, the second anybody uses time warp, they leave the space-time of everyone else and enter their own universe. You cannot change my present by waiting until I've gone into warp and then breaking all my solar panels, because the only thing that matters to me is my present. If you didn't break my panels while synced to me, then. it. didn't. happen. DMP only cares about what's happening in the player's present.

1 hour ago, razark said:

Past doesn't matter?  How did a ship get into orbit?  By launching at some point in the past.  If there was no launch in the past, the ship cannot be in orbit in the present.  If events that happened in the past turn out to not have happened, then it is a paradox.

Again, DMP only cares about the present. It doesn't care that you launched from Kerbin, orbited the Mun and then came back for re-entry. It only cares about what you're doing at the exact moment you're doing it. If you're in the middle of launch, it doesn't care that you were just in the VAB. If you're in transit to the mun, it doesn't care that you were just in orbit around kerbin. If you're orbiting the mun, it doesn't care that you were previously in transit. If you're re-entering kerbin atmosphere, it doesn't care that you were just at the mun.

It only cares about the here and the now. History doesn't exist in DMP. You cannot change future events because the other player's craft that you're now manipulating after they've enter warp no longer exists for that player as they have left your universe and entered their very own. Their craft still "exists" for you, but not for them. It serves little purpose other than to say "yeah, they were here." And as soon as you warp, yourself, their "copy craft" will be gone entirely.

(now again there are bugs that do cause the copy crafts to stick around and create some potential chaos from time to time, but this has nothing to do with the way time warp itself is handled and is more so to do with the way the mod is coded.)
----------
But I grow tired of having to say the same thing over and again, so with this I leave the conversation. I look forward to reading the inevitable reply(s), but I'll contribute no further myself.

 

[razark]

38 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

Yes. It. Does.

No. It. Don't.

30 GOTO 10

 

So, you just don't care that it's paradoxical, will declare that DMP solves everything even though it doesn't, and ignore the fact that your entire post points out a a bunch of paradoxical situations, which I have said is my problem with DMP's method.

I'm kind of tired of being told that if I just ignore the paradoxes, the paradoxes won't bother me. 

40 minutes ago, Greenfire32 said:

But I grow tired of having to say the same thing over and again...

I know the feeling.

[linuxgurugamer]

This entire thread makes no sense. Each of you make valid points, and obviously are not gonna change the other's mind. So why not just give it a rest and agree to disagree.

[Talavar]

37 minutes ago, razark said:

No. It. Don't.

30 GOTO 10

 

So, you just don't care that it's paradoxical, will declare that DMP solves everything even though it doesn't, and ignore the fact that your entire post points out a a bunch of paradoxical situations, which I have said is my problem with DMP's method.

I'm kind of tired of being told that if I just ignore the paradoxes, the paradoxes won't bother me. 

I know the feeling.

 just try DMP. you'll understand afterwards.

[razark]

12 minutes ago, Talavar said:

 just try DMP. you'll understand afterwards.

It's been made clear to me that it allows paradoxes.  I am opposed to paradoxes.  DMP's solution does something that I am opposed to.  Therefore, I do not need to try it.

Just try admitting DMP allows paradoxes, and that some users will be opposed to it.

 

46 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

This entire thread makes no sense. Each of you make valid points, and obviously are not gonna change the other's mind. So why not just give it a rest and agree to disagree.

I already stated that we would disagree, but the DMP crowd keeps claiming that it solves all the issues.

[Talavar]

55 minutes ago, razark said:

It's been made clear to me that it allows paradoxes.  I am opposed to paradoxes.  DMP's solution does something that I am opposed to.  Therefore, I do not need to try it.

Good troll.

[razark]

14 minutes ago, Talavar said:

Good troll.

Several times now, you've thrown the accusation that I am trolling.

 

I'm sorry, but I've addressed your points, and told you why DMP does not answer my objections.  All you've done in response is say that DMP solves everything, while pointing out how it is doing exactly what I oppose. 

Who, then, is trolling?  And why do you insist on making it personal?

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, Talavar said:

 just try DMP. you'll understand afterwards.

My experience with DMP says otherwise. 

Your assuption that people pointing flaws on DMP didn't have experience with it turn out to be false.

And even if that is the case you had the opportunity to explain how DMP avoids paradoxes. Try to be convincing instead of blaming people for their different taste. Being "right" is no excuse to disregard divergent opinions.

 

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

This entire thread makes no sense. Each of you make valid points, and obviously are not gonna change the other's mind. So why not just give it a rest and agree to disagree.

Personally,  I'm curious about how long this "entertaining" thread can last. IMHO the way people present their arguments can be very interesting.

Unfortunately the accusations already started. I guess we will have some moderator intervention soon. 

[sevenperforce]

Before this thread gets shut down, why not return to the question of whether sharing individual SOIs (with allowing position warp within SOIs) as a way of implementing multiplayer would be a way of avoiding paradoxes?

[razark]

20 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Before this thread gets shut down, why not return to the question of whether sharing individual SOIs (with allowing position warp within SOIs) as a way of implementing multiplayer would be a way of avoiding paradoxes?

Forgive me, but I really don't feel like looking back through the thread to find the original proposal.

Was the idea that each SOI would have it's own timeline shared by the users within it, and they can only adjust where they are in space, and not time?

If so, what would control the position of planets?  I'm guessing that would be covered by the timeline of the sun's SOI?