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

[Azimech]

17 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

"No I need to go to 1000x time warp NOW I dont care if your rover behaves "oddly" at 1000x."

"Well I dont care that your mission is due to take 4 years real-time, I've got stuff to do here."

 

Sure there are DEFINITELY some things that would be fun with a kind of multiplayer, but how does the above situation not ruin everything?

Think how often you use that acceleration feature. That it would cause problems with multiplayer is not an opinion.

 

Server should decide the limits. And as I've said before, some styles of mp don't need time acceleration. Fighter combat or racing for example. And it wouldn't surprise me if those would become the most popular.

[NSEP]

I like the idea of multiplayer. Maybe have something like a space cooperation program, where you are different working together with another player or something. I dunno.

[322997am]

On 6/20/2017 at 11:01 AM, sirgoodman said:

KSP is not a game that multiplayer would make sense with  

KSP is a sandbox, so let's go over some sandbox games similar to KSP with multiplayer:

beseige- has multiplayer in development, and will definitely make the game more fun.

minecraft-no explanation needed

avorion- the game is a new game with mp, and is so much more fun.

terratech could use some mp, as can from the depths. Only kerbal has people who think MP is useless. Let me state a few uses for it:

- actually getting useful stuff done such as space stations

- plane races

- stealing your friends ships

- just having fun

 

[p1t1o]

On 22/06/2017 at 6:53 PM, Azimech said:

Server should decide the limits. And as I've said before, some styles of mp don't need time acceleration. Fighter combat or racing for example. And it wouldn't surprise me if those would become the most popular.

Fighter combat and racing? I think you just made my point for me

Not for nothing, but one of the ONLY concrete (WAY more concrete than anything they have ever said about MP) things Squad have said about the development of KSP is that combat will NEVER be made stock. EVER.

FYI, I also pointed out some scenarios where MP could be fun, but it would be a LOT of codework to please a very niche market.

Its not that MP couldnt be made workable (with the proper amount of capital and man-hours - better spent on writing a bespoke MP game) in some scenarios, for some people,  but rather that expecting or feeling entitled to MP is pretty unreasonable.

[John FX]

One issue I just thought of. Player one is controlling craft one, player two controlling craft two. They dock, who is in control?

I could imagine 4 players all wanting to undock their craft from a station but player 5 is in control of the station and they cannot without player 5 agreeing.

MP is going to rely on a lot of RL goodwill...

[Spartwo]

That's the only proper issue I see. They could take a shared control route with minor features. Allow resource and crew transfer as well as unlocking but don't allow things like changing throttle or changing attitude. Like how multi crew ships function in games like Space Engineers.

[Azimech]

 

 

On 27-6-2017 at 8:16 PM, p1t1o said:

Fighter combat and racing? I think you just made my point for me

Not for nothing, but one of the ONLY concrete (WAY more concrete than anything they have ever said about MP) things Squad have said about the development of KSP is that combat will NEVER be made stock. EVER.

 

So? That doesn't stop the users to create such scenario's for themselves. The fact they don't support it in the vanilla game (which is good btw) doesn't mean they're against it either. Or else they would've barred the development of BDA and other mods containing weapons. Sometimes they even feature examples of combat on their official facebook and twitter.

This was posted on their FB page June 17th:

 

And I don't know about you guys but I feel such a video is much more entertaining to watch than another mission of building a base or mining on some kind of barren rock.

Creativity & adrenaline flow. Love it.

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Azimech

[Jas0n]

I have been lurking in these multiplayer discussion threads for a long time. My opinion is that large public servers are unrealistic due to lag, time warp and people being jerks.

However collaborations with a few friends would be really fun. Time warp can be decided when the server is being made. For example if the focus is racing/combat then no time warp. If the focus is a joint space exploration then players can vote on time warp.

As for ship control after docking, one person will take main control (maybe the person with the more massive ship pre docking) and the other person can have access to right click menus. The control can be handed off to the other person if need be.

[RedLeafPatriot]

I know I'm late, but I just wanted to say, I would gladly pay for official multiplayer DLC/Add-on.

There is no debate on how it would work, the KSP\DMP mods handle time warp perfectly.

Another early access game that added multiplayer much later in development would be "The forest". it allows you to have your own dedicated server and play with friends LAN/Online.

The only reason I ever payed for the "the forest" was the multiplayer, it is great fun, I feel that there is a customer interest in multiplayer not being tapped for Kerbal space program.

I love the game as is, The only DLC/addon I would be interested in is Multiplayer. My price point if it existed would be $15. if i was to buy ksp for a friend with base game and multiplayer included I would expect to pay $30.

Say for example the making history add-on also added multiplayer to the base game. I would expect to pay 30.00 just for that.

 

as long as people keep saying they wont pay for multiplayer, its just not going to happen. TAKE MY MONEY.

 

 

[Azimech]

Welcome to the forum, @RedLeafPatriot!

[mattinoz]

On 21/06/2017 at 1:01 AM, sirgoodman said:

KSP is not a game that multiplayer would make sense with  

To me most of the not making sense comes down to "warp might create paradox".

To which I'd say Paradox might would be good for the game.

Even as a single player. Everything happens over such a vast time and distance scales that being able to run a mission out under its own timeline would be useful. Play it till the point the paradox is going to matter then snap back to the start and let the server deal with slowly integrating that future into the cannon as the base timeline catches up. 

Planning by the seat your pants. If you or another player invalidates your future timeline then well just think of the replay value. Or the server has an air traffic controller that stops it happening. 

I would pay $15 dollar to run a career game as multi-actor.

Edited July 4, 2017 by mattinoz
No need to mince words.

[SupperRobin6394]

The DMP mod works quite well, I run a server myself (private usage) and I really like the concept.

The only issue is the refresh rate of the vessel sync, you cannot fly/drive next to each other without weird stuff happening with the crafts of the other players on your screen.

 

If they bring out a client version (stock, DLC, official mod, doesn't matter to me honestly) and a server version so you can host it yourself, that'll be amazing.

Hosting a server yourself allows you to play in peace with friends and can give you more control, plus no hosting costs for SQUAD.

[linuxgurugamer]

59 minutes ago, SupperRobin6394 said:

The DMP mod works quite well, I run a server myself (private usage) and I really like the concept.

The only issue is the refresh rate of the vessel sync, you cannot fly/drive next to each other without weird stuff happening with the crafts of the other players on your screen.

 

 

Doesnt sound like it runs well. That sink issue you mentioned is a big problem.

[SupperRobin6394]

9 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Doesnt sound like it runs well. That sink issue you mentioned is a big problem.

It does run well if you want to do missions together, but not when close to each other or having interaction (docking to a vessel controlled by another player).

[linuxgurugamer]

32 minutes ago, SupperRobin6394 said:

but not when close to each other or having interaction

Tell me when you don't need to say "but".  This makes it unusable for general use.  You can't release something for general use when you need to say "oh, it works well, except in ........."

[SupperRobin6394]

10 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Tell me when you don't need to say "but".  This makes it unusable for general use.  You can't release something for general use when you need to say "oh, it works well, except in ........."

I did have some fun with my cousin with DMP, the bugs cause even more fun sometimes honestly.

Yes, it can be improved and yes it actually sucks so hard due to many failures in the sync.

With some good thinking, you can make use of it and stuff, but sadly for now I've gotta agree; KSP doesn't have a good multiplayer.

[RedLeafPatriot]

 

On 2017-07-03 at 7:56 PM, Azimech said:

Welcome to the forum, @RedLeafPatriot!

Thanks!

On 2017-07-04 at 4:21 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

Doesnt sound like it runs well. That sink issue you mentioned is a big problem.

The mod has its issues for the fact that it is a mod which has almost stopped development, imagine what a full developer supported addon could accomplish!

[Geonovast]

I would love official multiplayer.  I'd much rather pay for DLC for this fantastic game than for pre-planned DLC for yet another cookie cutter FPS game.  I'm more than happy to give @SQUAD more money for this.

However I think it would be best to keep it local LAN only and restrict to two players.  It seems a headless (local) server running between the players to do the math would be good, but I'm no programmer. 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

I'm gonna make the same post I always make when this issue comes up. Why?

This game just isn't conducive to multiplayer. You spend 95% of your time either building something in the VAB/SPH or plotting maneuver nodes in the map view. How would a second, third, or fourth person add to this experience?

I'm sure someone is going to take this to the extreme logical fallacy of "Your saying it's impossible to have fun with others in KSP" which I'm not, You could totally find something fun to do I'm sure, but you wouldn't be progressing in the game, you'd be jerking around essentially. The core game play thrust isn't something you can really share with someone else. I'm also not saying you couldn't find some way to be productive with two people, but you'd basically be doing it in spite of what the game is actually about rather than for it. Would it hurt my feelings if they added multiplayer? No, I'd certainly give it a try but I feel it'd be a poor use of development time, money, and resources.

[easytarget]

I'm new here so feel free to ignore my 2 cents accordingly, but I'll throw them in just the same, I don't see this being a MP game. Also, everything in the world that's released as a game doesn't, just because it's a trend currently, have to be released with an MP component.  It's also a fad of late to make everything indie a rogue-like even if that game design element isn't needed in every single game release nor that it even necessarily makes an enjoyable game experience, sometimes it and sometimes it doesn't.  This industry has a bad habit of piling on an idea till it's applied too far and wide even in places where it doesn't fit.  Same happens with MP.  

It's ok, in fact it's more than ok, to have games that are SP.  The time and energy of development can then be exclusively about putting in more content for SP.

[TMS]

The only disappointing thing about Multiplayer not happening... is that Squad would have unnecessarily burnt resources on something that most people recognised early on would be inherently compromised by the game's nature.

I'd really rather Squad addressed the very long list of other fundamental issues with the game, rather than dicking around with multiplayer.

That said, if multiplayer ever materialises, I'd totally spend a few hours launching SRB missiles at your perfectly constructed ISS replica.

Of course, given that most of the original dev team have walked away from the project, I don't see either of these two outcomes happening.

[Talavar]

On 7/21/2017 at 4:16 AM, TMS said:

That said, if multiplayer ever materialises, I'd totally spend a few hours launching SRB missiles at your perfectly constructed ISS replica.

 

 This is exactly why multiplayer is best set to a few close friends.. such as with DMP. I play DMP with my son and brother. We collaborate on many things. Building bases on the moon, etc. It's just a little strange because DMP provides no movement smoothing, which causes some unwanted things to happen when you are near each other.. Basically you character is at position 1,a... then you move to 2,a... Your data is sent to the server.. then the server updates the other players with your coords.. The problem is that it doesnt simply move your character there.. it seems that it literally half moves, and deletes your character, then rebuilds it in the new location.. lol.. It does it pretty quickly, so it looks "OK", however, this is what causes most of the problems.. It makes it look choppy while moving. if there was a small piece of script actually written into code itself that caused it to move at normal speed from point to point, rather than having to destroy/rebuild upon movement, it would probably work like a champ.

On 6/22/2017 at 1:33 PM, p1t1o said:

"No I need to go to 1000x time warp NOW I dont care if your rover behaves "oddly" at 1000x."

"Well I dont care that your mission is due to take 4 years real-time, I've got stuff to do here."

 

Sure there are DEFINITELY some things that would be fun with a kind of multiplayer, but how does the above situation not ruin everything?

Think how often you use that acceleration feature. That it would cause problems with multiplayer is not an opinion.

 

  This problem has already been adressed in DMP. I suggest grabbing a buddy and trying it out. Experience with it is fantastic, albiet a bit buggy.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Talavar

[Selfizz]

Hello there,

Has anyone ever suggested to replace time warp for Multiplayer with a Warp-drive? I understand it doesn't really fit the game entirely but the main reason for people warping time is, to not wait hours / days / years for travel. My suggestion would be to disable timewarp and have a warp drive for travelling in space. It would be limited to use in a way the "warp to maneuver" works. Once you unlock maneuvers you can  "warp to maneuver" to (basically) teleport you there. This would at least solve the issue with "sync time" and people doing things in the past. I'm sure this has been suggested at least once by someone in the past though. Maybe I didn't really think this through. 

Don't get yourselves killed too frequently fellow astronauts

[SchweinAero]

3 hours ago, Selfizz said:

Hello there,

Has anyone ever suggested to replace time warp for Multiplayer with a Warp-drive?

Not many people except for everyone and their goldfish. Not even us warp-then-sync proponents like the idea because it wreaks havoc on the idea of predictable transfer orbits. 

[Selfizz]

12 hours ago, SchweinAero said:

Not many people except for everyone and their goldfish. Not even us warp-then-sync proponents like the idea because it wreaks havoc on the idea of predictable transfer orbits. 

Fair point. I only noticed that after I got home from work.