Remember when "We are dedicated to adding multiplayer" was a thing?

[Spartwo]

No, the topic is the implementation of multiplayer, not how it could work. We've had plenty of the latter..

And as such, I very much hope the next big thing after localisation, besides a much needed art pass, is the implementation of multiplayer.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Spartwo

[Azimech]

I would love MP.

[V7 Aerospace]

8 hours ago, Talavar said:

   I didn't see this one. Then again.. I'm not going digging deep... We don't need more parts and contracts anyway. I can do that with a few clicks of my mouse... -.-

Can you not download a MP mod with a few clicks too?

Right now it seems SQUAD have got a bit much to do right now, rather than re-writing entire parts of the game so that people can play together. It may happen sometime in the future, that's all you can hope for.

Edited May 25, 2017 by V7 Aerospace

[Spartwo]

What do Squad do besides re-writing the game to add more features. They just rewrote large parts of it so there could be more languages. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Spartwo

[Combatsmithen]

Yeah. SQUAD does nothing but write and re-write code (not saying that in a derogatory way). New parts at this point aren't really necessary as everything else can come through mods and more and more parts actually ruins the simplicity of the base game. If a modder can make a semi-functioning MP. I don't see why a dev team of several people can't code a pretty decent MP.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Combatsmithen

[ZooNamedGames]

Likely has been said, but just in case;

Squad just lost the majority of their development staff, so anything large scale like MP is most definitely onhold for a long duration until they either get a new crew of confidence this small crew can achieve something large scale like MP.

Even if they did get the crew and ability, it's still likely on the bottom of their todo list because like many game companies (or at least what used to be a work style), their going to make the single player more enjoyable to play before focusing on multiplayer.

Lastly, KSP is still very broken when it comes to live updates of vessels and moreover KSP is very limited on power seeing as it utilizes only single cores at the moment.

So expecting MP is unrealistic on the same time scale and dates mentioned in those statements as they made were likely in confidence the majority of their development team wouldn't just get up and quit without warning.

[Combatsmithen]

We don't even need large public servers, just games you could host with small numbers of players so you can play with friends, large public servers could be community run like most other games. Such as Space Engineers.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Combatsmithen

[archnem]

Just to add my .02 to the conversation:

 

I don't see why multiplayer is such a big deal to begin with.  How would it even work?  And what would the point be?  Crashing your ships into each other?  A space race scenario? One guy builds stuff on the Mun while another builds on Minmus?  A chatroom with spaceships? None of these sound particularly appealing to me, honestly.   And beating Squad over the head about it is...dumb, imo.  Over the years they've said they wanted to add lots of things to the game that fell by the wayside (GP2 anyone?).  That's just the nature of the business.  Still being listed in the FAQ, however is problematic - they should probably fix that I guess.  But both MP and this thread get the same reaction from me - "meh."

[Talavar]

On 5/26/2017 at 1:44 PM, llanthas said:

This.

I could see some sort of meta-game developed, involving different programs running on opposite sides of the planet, a'la Russia vs. USA, or something.

An alternative would be for each player to receive updates on the others' space program via in-game news releases or something, but this is just as easily done with the forums.

Running a program with 2+ independent players having to coordinate co-op style would be fun for a few, but mostly just a mess of enraged people, if it involved any sort of MP lobby. 
That leaves putting 2 people into the same instance, which is NO small investment of time and effort to create, for a very minimal benefit.  

 

Leave it be, it's fine as-is.

 This is most definitely a one sided opinion.. I've played Mutliplayer (be it broken), and we had a blast.. constructing space stations together, doing science while the other does contracts to build up funds, It's much more enjoyable than fly to spot, plant flag.. fly to spot gather data... fly to spot, redirect asteroid. It breaks the monotony because you also have cooperation, hilarity, and unexpected things happening. It was actually quite the opposite of what you are describing.  There were no griefers, and there was no anger flying everywhere.. I think it has more to do with the mindset of people who play KSP. We aren't mostly a bunch of raging teenagers behind a simulated M16 with a bunch of noobs out in front of us to wipe out and gloat... instead we are more of a building community.. we like to experiment, build things, tweak things, see how they change, etc. Collaboration is just one more thing that makes the game wonderful. One of the reasons that this game has such a fantastic modding community, is because most are a cut above the rest in intelligence and patience. I mean.. the game does have somewhat of a learning curve.. if you have no patience, this is definitely not a game for you. Hence the community was molded by this fundamental fact as a whole.

On 5/25/2017 at 1:04 PM, regex said:

To be serious, the fundamental problem is network bandwidth and CPU usage. Remember that every craft in KSP is built using discrete parts that all interact with each other when they are within physics range. All the force calculations that happen with each part during each frame need to be done by that central server and then sent out over the wire to each player for every focused craft. This is not a flight sim where each craft is represented by, say, a single object that can have flags applied to represent damage to certain parts, this is a flight sim where every part has its own trajectory and interacts with all other parts.

This is a non-trivial problem to solve. If it were as easy as you claim it would have been done already.

   There is no bandwidth problem.. You need to think of this as a seeding framework.. when two computers with the same data have the same number input into them, they always end up with the same outcome. Hence all that has to be communicated is control input, and the amount of force.. the client will take care of the rest. Hence, You need X/Y/Z coordinates, Heading,orientation, and force applied (input) from the keyboard controls. If something does go out of whack due to one system lagging behind the other, it gets updated with the Orientation data rather quickly and continues from there..This is a very small amount of data for modern bandwidth capabilities, even if you have 100's of ship pieces floating around... Both computers end up with the same outcome. It already has been done... but it needs refined. The major problem is ghosting when docking (2 ships copy themselves then instantly collide and explode), and player control during docking (who gets control when two ships dock?)..  Some of these work some of the time, but not always... those are the major issues that need addressed.. there has to be a fundamental set up to control it all.. Hence, why squad would be best suited to handle it. Time control for warping has also been addressed, rather well I might add.. If you time warp, and I am in the past, your data gets updated (in the future) as I make changed (in the past) then once I'm ready to work with you, I simply press "Sync time" It updates me to where I would be in orbit if I was at the time frame you are in.. Pretty simple actually and works very well and accurate. (usually)     hence the need for refinement.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Talavar

[Talavar]

Actually, just checked the "pinned" Common suggestions... says it's "planned" so... well.. Hope it stops being planned soon, and actually happens.. lol

[Talavar]

On 5/25/2017 at 4:49 PM, Brent Kerman said:

The explanation of the problems in each multiplayer time warp suggestion would crash my PC. Here is a brief example(Warp Synced solution): I'm doing low Kerbin orbit missions, my buddy is half way to Jool. He's not happy that he has to wait through 1x time warp for half an hour while I resupply my space station. Example 2 (Warp separately, then sync [DMP]) : I dock (After warping) to station port A on day 56 at 3:02:52. My buddy was not warping and docks to port A on day 56 at 1:37:19, but after me in real life. We sync. The problem should be evident here.

 This is fixed simply by adding "Node Currently occupied".. Basically, If it is still occupied in the future, then you cannot dock to it, or you cannot time warp until undocking. this keeps a person from warping into a timeframe where it is docked by another person, and only requires a simple check.. your option would be to select a different dock on the station, or simply wait for that person to undock in the future timeframe.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Talavar

[mattinoz]

On 26/05/2017 at 10:33 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

Likely has been said, but just in case;

Squad just lost the majority of their development staff, so anything large scale like MP is most definitely onhold for a long duration until they either get a new crew of confidence this small crew can achieve something large scale like MP.

Even if they did get the crew and ability, it's still likely on the bottom of their todo list because like many game companies (or at least what used to be a work style), their going to make the single player more enjoyable to play before focusing on multiplayer.

Lastly, KSP is still very broken when it comes to live updates of vessels and moreover KSP is very limited on power seeing as it utilizes only single cores at the moment.

So expecting MP is unrealistic on the same time scale and dates mentioned in those statements as they made were likely in confidence the majority of their development team wouldn't just get up and quit without warning.

 

Is this a problem or an opportunity?

If the code is well documented then another dev should be able to pick it up and add in a different function. If the code isn't well documented then at some point that will kill future progress. Even if well documented the current code will most likely hit a point where assumptions made (ie. the ship is the centre of the universe) make further development troublesome.

Given Multi-player has been talked about as DLC/ expansion it will bring in cash flow and pay for a modernisation pass needed to keep the single player game developing. If at the same time it means a single player can be a multi-actor and sometimes have a mission directors hat on to play-plan a single mission to completion then zip back in time to the start of that mission or shortly after launch put the Program Directors hat and start the next adventure. Then it could in itself be an improvement to single player games.

Time frame is still important. I'd imagine squad wouldn't want to take on more than one DLC project a year so this year is out.

 

 

[Alshain]

59 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Is this a problem or an opportunity?

If the code is well documented then another dev should be able to pick it up and add in a different function. If the code isn't well documented then at some point that will kill future progress. Even if well documented the current code will most likely hit a point where assumptions made (ie. the ship is the centre of the universe) make further development troublesome.

It's not.  It's not incredibly well organized code either.

[AlamoVampire]

I have said this so so many times before. KSP does not lend itself to multiplayer. It never will. Why?

Mod conflicts, part counts, differences in computer performances, trolls, timewarp. This list is almost infinite.

[regex]

On 5/28/2017 at 0:13 PM, Talavar said:

   There is no bandwidth problem.. You need to think of this as a seeding framework.. when two computers with the same data have the same number input into them, they always end up with the same outcome. Hence all that has to be communicated is control input, and the amount of force.. the client will take care of the rest.

So basically you're off-loading all of the calculations for every focused craft to every client of the server? Every client now has to calculate this closed system itself. So now it's not a bandwidth problem, it's a CPU problem based on the lowest common denominator; if someone lags out then everyone has to lag out to remain in sync? I think that might work for two people but as soon as you add another, or a larger, more complicated craft to the mix, things get slow mighty quickly.

[mattinoz]

6 hours ago, regex said:

So basically you're off-loading all of the calculations for every focused craft to every client of the server? Every client now has to calculate this closed system itself. So now it's not a bandwidth problem, it's a CPU problem based on the lowest common denominator; if someone lags out then everyone has to lag out to remain in sync? I think that might work for two people but as soon as you add another, or a larger, more complicated craft to the mix, things get slow mighty quickly.

 

Surely this only applies to craft in the same physics bubble or close to each other. Not every craft. The rest of time the server only really cares about bodies in orbit.

KSP vast distances and the fact it takes decided activity on the players part to get two craft together to me suggests there is a whole lot of wiggle room for limited paradox. Indeed warping gives more advantage as there seems to be no reason two players at the same warp level couldn't be told be the server to make minor adjustments (one at 101x while the other is at 99x) so that timelines are together by the time they interact.

 

[regex]

5 minutes ago, mattinoz said:

Surely this only applies to craft in the same physics bubble or close to each other. Not every craft. The rest of time the server only really cares about bodies in orbit.

OP is talking about a seeding framework, which means that each focused craft must be simulated in the same way in order to arrive at the exact same solution. You can't half-do it with one person's stuff being on rails, that will be imperfect.

[Bilfr3d]

@Talavar If you know so much about making a multiplayer mode for KSP, why don't you join the dev team?

In all seriousness, there are tonnes of issues that plague the possibility of KSP-MP, many of which have already been discussed (in some way) here. It isn't feasible with the current state of the game, the current state of mod/file control, the current state of the development team, and most importantly the current state of the community - while the community is divided as it is over the possibility of multiplayer, why would SQUAD put resources towards implementing it? They'd be much better off implementing resources towards, oh I dunno, fixing bugs maybe? Increasing their target audience by adding localization? Increasing their target audience by releasing the game on console? At the end of the day, SQUAD is a business. It's like seeing those cheesy, 3 minute ads on TV about those weird kitchen appliances - buy one now, and get this weird kitchen appliance holder FREE!

In a sense, this is what SQUAD has to do to stay alive - buy this game now, and get these extra official contracts and parts in this DLC for a small payment of only $x.xx. And on a level, I have a bit of empathy with SQUAD, but I digress.At the end of the day, SQUAD ultimately decides what they do or do not want to do with the game.

They're a business, and they need to make money. Why don't you make a huge game, with millions of downloads, with no income. You won't have motivation, you won't dedicate time, and your game won't make it past alpha. Either that, or your game will suck REALLY bad. My 2c.

[SchweinAero]

On 28.5.2017 at 10:13 PM, Talavar said:

 This is most definitely a one sided opinion.. I've played Mutliplayer (be it broken), and we had a blast.. constructing space stations together, doing science while the other does contracts to build up funds, It's much more enjoyable than fly to spot, plant flag.. fly to spot gather data... fly to spot, redirect asteroid. It breaks the monotony because you also have cooperation, hilarity, and unexpected things happening. It was actually quite the opposite of what you are describing.  There were no griefers, and there was no anger flying everywhere.. I think it has more to do with the mindset of people who play KSP. We aren't mostly a bunch of raging teenagers behind a simulated M16 with a bunch of noobs out in front of us to wipe out and gloat... instead we are more of a building community.. we like to experiment, build things, tweak things, see how they change, etc. Collaboration is just one more thing that makes the game wonderful. One of the reasons that this game has such a fantastic modding community, is because most are a cut above the rest in intelligence and patience. I mean.. the game does have somewhat of a learning curve.. if you have no patience, this is definitely not a game for you. Hence the community was molded by this fundamental fact as a whole.

[snip]

Thank you for being one of the rare voices of experience in this kind of thread.

To everyone else: If you have a concern about multiplayer and haven't tried DMP yet, please, I beg you on my knees, do. It's not perfect by any means, but knowing our best current option will sharpen your questions immensely. It will also lend credibility to your thoughts.

[TheEpicSquared]

Quote

Remember when "We are dedicated to adding multiplayer" was a thing?

[Talavar]

On 6/1/2017 at 1:48 PM, TheEpicSquared said:

This about killed me... rofl!!!

On 5/31/2017 at 6:51 PM, SchweinAero said:

Thank you for being one of the rare voices of experience in this kind of thread.

To everyone else: If you have a concern about multiplayer and haven't tried DMP yet, please, I beg you on my knees, do. It's not perfect by any means, but knowing our best current option will sharpen your questions immensely. It will also lend credibility to your thoughts.

   Yes, experiencing it definitely helps to enlighten the problems with it, and what needs to be refined to implement it properly.

On 5/30/2017 at 1:13 PM, regex said:

So basically you're off-loading all of the calculations for every focused craft to every client of the server? Every client now has to calculate this closed system itself. So now it's not a bandwidth problem, it's a CPU problem based on the lowest common denominator; if someone lags out then everyone has to lag out to remain in sync? I think that might work for two people but as soon as you add another, or a larger, more complicated craft to the mix, things get slow mighty quickly.

No It's scene oriented for each focused craft (see below for more details), ....as for the rest....once again.. the least common denominator doesn't matter, because of the syncing of the details I described. If Im ahead of you by one calculation, then my output becomes the basis for the entire X,Y,Z + orientation, as my data was sent to the server first.. this info is passed to the server, and then It updates you accordingly even if you are slightly behind... as i've said,  It's already been done. there isn't much data involved. If X object collides on my screen a second before it happens on your screen, the server has recieved the data of x,y,z,orientation of the debr from mei, and the server realizes this and removed the craft accordingly on your screen, then adds the coords and orientation of each piece of debris, which is only a few variables.. Your next ping to the server will include that updated data, and pass it on and remove the craft automatically and place the new data for the debris. Even if your game completely freezes because your CPU is slow, it doesn't matter.. it will update accordingly when it unfreezes. Hence the fastest CPU simply passes on what happened before your computer calculates it. In this way, the fastest computer rules the day, not the slowest. As for the amount of data being passed by the server, it requires roughly a 56k modem for the client receiving it. lol (little exaggeration, but not by much when compared to today's standards ...)

  As for each scene, you can think of each focused craft as a separate room where calculations are done. If you are on Duna, and I am on kerbin, the only thing that gets updated for me are the coords of your ship.. I don't need all your other data.. If your ship breaks apart.. I don't need all the variables of whats happening.. I only need the coords of your debris. your computer already calculated everything that happened.. I just need updated with the coordinate data.

Edited June 5, 2017 by Talavar

[Kerbart]

On 5/25/2017 at 7:54 PM, Combatsmithen said:

If a modder can make a semi-functioning MP. I don't see why a dev team of several people can't code a pretty decent MP.

Nothing is impossible... for the man who doesn't have to do it himself!

The fact that the game doesn't offer multiplayer should be a hint that implementing it is not as trivial as it seems, Yes, there are mods out there, and apparently they are semi decent. But for MP to be stock that's not enough, and bridging the gap between semi-decent and "working for the entire userbase" (because that is what a stock function has to do) might be a complete nightmare. There's performance issues, how to deal with doens of playerson one server, who pays for the server, etc, etc. There are ways to deal with that but they all result in "Squad made MP useless! Bad Squad!" And for what? For a fairly limited group of players. In the end, it's apparently not worth the effort right now (or we would have had it already).

[Talavar]

31 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Nothing is impossible... for the man who doesn't have to do it himself!

The fact that the game doesn't offer multiplayer should be a hint that implementing it is not as trivial as it seems, Yes, there are mods out there, and apparently they are semi decent. But for MP to be stock that's not enough, and bridging the gap between semi-decent and "working for the entire userbase" (because that is what a stock function has to do) might be a complete nightmare. There's performance issues, how to deal with doens of playerson one server, who pays for the server, etc, etc. There are ways to deal with that but they all result in "Squad made MP useless! Bad Squad!" And for what? For a fairly limited group of players. In the end, it's apparently not worth the effort right now (or we would have had it already).

         Im not squad, and I don't stand to make a dollar off of it. If i worked there, I'd have probably already started working on it (if allowed). They have said forever that it will be implemented. I simply expect it to happen. So yes.. its "Bad squad" (if you want to put it that way)....and multiplayer isn't as "Small" of a user-base as you think it is, as DMP has been downloaded Thousands and thousands of times from different repositories over the last few years. I've been on servers with lots of players...Also, there is no "paid server" you can easily host something this small off of your computer as DMP has already shown..

Edited June 5, 2017 by Talavar

[John FX]

If this thread was started 2 years ago I would be one of the people calling for and expecting MP. Today, my expectations of squad are more... realistic.

We will not be getting multiplayer. We will not be getting a delta-v readout. There will be no Gas Planet 2.

My only hope is that my past experience will not be valid in the future because take-two have paid some money to own the rights to kerbals.

Although I feel that many of the things we would want in KSP will be in KSP 2, which has the option of being written from the ground up in a way which makes these features much easier.

[Talavar]

1 minute ago, John FX said:

If this thread was started 2 years ago I would be one of the people calling for and expecting MP. Today, my expectations of squad are more... realistic.

We will not be getting multiplayer. We will not be getting a delta-v readout. There will be no Gas Planet 2.

My only hope is that my past experience will not be valid in the future because take-two have paid some money to own the rights to kerbals.

Although I feel that many of the things we would want in KSP will be in KSP 2, which has the option of being written from the ground up in a way which makes these features much easier.

  Believe me... I already sat in your chair.. I simply looked at it in my steam list, and came to check out what was going on, and got angry because I've been waiting for it, and it's still not here... this thread saw a bit of my fire when it was first started... It was of-course edited out by moderators.. but that's fine.. my anger passed.. lol