Multiplayer in KSP 1.8

[linuxgurugamer]

On 8/26/2017 at 8:31 AM, popos1 said:

Hi,

I hope that squad will finally add multiplayer in the next update, like they very long time ago said.

Regards

Changelog:

- [16.10.18] changed version to 1.6
- [09.03.18] changed version to 1.5

 Not going to happen. There are too many ways for this to fail. It's not worth the headache, there are too many other play areas in the program which could used the work.

[Mr. Peabody]

1 hour ago, popos1 said:

Any news?

No multi. Ever.

[razark]

@SQUAD:

Just answer the damn question and end the speculation.  Is multiplayer dead, or still on the table?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

On 10/16/2018 at 6:10 PM, razark said:

@SQUAD:

Just answer the damn question and end the speculation.  Is multiplayer dead, or still on the table?

Bad idea for them to be honest.

Saying nothing leaves the possibility open for future consideration while not obligating them.

Saying no closes the door on the idea forever, and saying yes; puts them in a position where they have to deliver it or face backlash.

I'd like to know the official word too, as I'm a curious sort, but from Squad's perspective ignoring the question really is the best course of action. It's what I would do if I were them lol.

[razark]

6 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Saying nothing leaves the possibility open for future consideration while not obligating them.

So does saying "We're still considering it.", or "We're working on it, but we're not promising it.", or "We don't think it's going to work now, but we're open to revisiting it at a later time.".

It's not either/or.  "Maybe" is always a possibility.

Edited October 18, 2018 by razark

[Arugela]

Yea, but if they say some things and change their mind it's easier if they don't. It depends on the situation. They may not be in a situation where they can. Maybe they don't know.

Situations can change rapidly. It would be nice though. I wouldn't mind if they started doing experimental modes. Say experimental mutliplayer or multicore/threading or various other things to try. Maybe the reality of making it might help it along and find ways to do it or help find a new things that shape the game.

Some things they can hide in the cheat areas or in special game sessions with warning on it to say it's not working yet but you can play around with it. If anything people who don't' care of youtubers can use it to make videos in super slow motion. They do now and speed them up normally. Although I would put some warning on it not being 1:1 time wise. 8p

Edited October 21, 2018 by Arugela

[AVaughan]

Saying "We're still considering it." will raise hopes.  Given how some of the community will react to disappointment, Squad shouldn't say that unless they are committed to implementing it. 

[swjr-swis]

3 hours ago, AVaughan said:

Given how some of the community will react to disappointment, Squad shouldn't say that unless they are committed to implementing it.

Given how there's always 'some of the community' reacting with disappointment to every single patch or release of the game, or new features added, that could hardly be a consideration anymore; they would've stopped development entirely already.

[AVaughan]

38 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Given how there's always 'some of the community' reacting with disappointment to every single patch or release of the game, or new features added, that could hardly be a consideration anymore; they would've stopped development entirely already.

You are missing the point.  There is no reason for them to make an announcement that might raise false hopes.  There is no benefit to saying "We are considering implementing multiplayer".  All it does is raise hopes, which will lead to a disappointed backlash if they fail to implement it.  

[swjr-swis]

50 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

You are missing the point.  There is no reason for them to make an announcement that might raise false hopes.  There is no benefit to saying "We are considering implementing multiplayer".  All it does is raise hopes, which will lead to a disappointed backlash if they fail to implement it.

You are missing my point: There is no reason for them to hold back on giving any kind of statement out of a false fear for either 'raising false hopes' or 'disappointed backlash'... because both of those happen anyway, with every single release and/or feature added, even without multiplayer being in the mix.

It's the norm, with every single release - some people get false hopes on what the new release or patch will add, or what the newly announced feature is going to be like, or how well/complete/stable a new stockified mod is going to be, and inevitable when the release drops, some people end up disappointed and become vocal about it. It happens e.v.e.r.y. time. So there is no point in suggesting that they keep quiet about multiplayer specifically to 'avoid' raising hopes or later disappointment... it's gonna happen anyway.

By refusing to make any statement at all they are actually perpetuating this cycle for multiplayer specifically: because silence doesn't mean a definitive NO, every announced release people get renewed hopes up and start asking 'please include multiplayer' and then end up disappointed when the new release doesn't include it, with another storm of posts complaining about it.

The 'hopes' -false or not- are already there, and will always be there as long as Squad refuses to either do it or put the subject to definitive death by SAYING IT. The disappointment and following moaning when the feature continues to not be included in every next release is a guaranteed result because of that.

[AVaughan]

My comment was about saying "We are considering adding multiplayer"  (or alternative phrasing such as "It's something we might consider doing").  I wasn't suggesting that they shouldn't give a definitive "No",  (if Squad decides that they want to do that then go ahead.  Personally I'm not convinced that will stop people wanting multiplayer, nor am I convinced that it will reduce the thread where people keep asking for it.  So overall I just don't see a net upside from giving a definitive "No").    They also shouldn't give a definitive yes unless they are 100% committed to implementing it.  But making any sort of in-between comment will just raise hopes a lot more than the current stay silent approach. 

Personally I think that anyone who actually gets their hopes up in the current stay silent approach is deluding themselves.  Getting multiplayer to work reliably and well is going to be a big task, and I simply can't see Squad doing it. 

Indeed I consider doing it right to be an impossible design challenge.  How would you design the system to make timewarp work if player one wants to go to Jool direct, player 2 wants to do an Eve-Kerbin-Jool transfer, and player 3 wants to fly to the poles in a plane in Kerbin's atmosphere, before designing his Jool mission.  (Don't forget that they all have contracts with expiry dates.  So you can't allow players 1 and 2 to timewarp 2 years whilst player 3 is in the Spaceplane hangar designing a new plane).  

Edited October 21, 2018 by AVaughan

[BadLeo]

Squad should give the community an honest statement on the subject, even if it doesn't say either a definitive yes or a definitive no. They should say if MP is still on their wishes to make it happen, even if in the distant future only, or if they are having some kind of trouble with it, or if it doesn't fit their vision for the game anymore, and if their position may be subject to change in the future or not. But they should say SOMETHING. No one is asking them to make some kind of promise, much less one they can't withhold, nor to commit to something they don't believe in. People are asking them to be upfront with the current state of MP in relation to their plans for the game and their development capabilities. Saying nothing only gives room for speculation.

[Vanamonde]

Some posts have been removed. Firstly, please have something to say when you post rather than simply bumping a thread for the sake of it. Secondly, guys, the idea is that you report a post you think is a problem instead of replying to it rather than reporting it and replying to it. 

[winnermah]

Lmao when people will learn that multiplayer doesn't work on ksp and it is a game made for playing alone?

[KerbolExplorer]

1 hour ago, winnermah said:

Lmao when people will learn that multiplayer doesn't work on ksp and it is a game made for playing alone?

When the game dies.Thats when people will stop asking.

[klgraham1013]

1 hour ago, KerbolExplorer said:

When the game dies.Thats when people will stop asking.

You're probably right.

[mattinoz]

On 10/22/2018 at 2:33 PM, BadLeo said:

Squad should give the community an honest statement on the subject, even if it doesn't say either a definitive yes or a definitive no. They should say if MP is still on their wishes to make it happen, even if in the distant future only, or if they are having some kind of trouble with it, or if it doesn't fit their vision for the game anymore, and if their position may be subject to change in the future or not. But they should say SOMETHING. No one is asking them to make some kind of promise, much less one they can't withhold, nor to commit to something they don't believe in. People are asking them to be upfront with the current state of MP in relation to their plans for the game and their development capabilities. Saying nothing only gives room for speculation.

After all hinted long along Delta-V has happened so the Dev's are the only ones who know what can be possible.

 

[OrbitsR4Sissies]

As a game player since, well, we had 4-bits or mainframe terminals, I wanted to add my two-bits. I'm sure someone's mentioned it before.

How in the world (literally) would KSP work in multiplayer logistically?

1. There's only one homeworld. That means there are only a few useful launch sites for either sending something to polar orbit, high inclination or equatorial. And you have learned that launching with the planet's rotation is more efficient, right? Would there be hundreds of thousands of player-run launch sites? Logging would be instant Kessler Syndrome.
2. So, if there were launch site outposts on non-Kerbin worlds, the logistics for living, launching, the cost of materials would also be different. And again, a world would have hundreds of thousands of player-run launch sites.
3. So, a multiplayer Kerbol system has another word to describe it: Colonized. Why would we start to play in a solar system where everyone is everywhere already?
4. Resolving all three points would turn KSP from a simple, growing space agency simulator into a game type already present: Multiplayer Civilization-type games. That means solar systems per player. It means things that KSP doesn't model to keep to a certain realism: Things like faster-than-light communication and flight. Your Saturn V-like craft would be simulating the real ones today--in a museum, unused.
5. And there would always be the players who try to change the rules and destroy your gameplay. While you're just wanting to land a rover on Duna, somebody else has already visited, created rockets that are actually missiles and trying to blow your orbiting spacecraft into a kazillion pieces. Welcome to Kerbal Missile Command.

On the back-end, the idea of KSP requiring Blizzard Entertainment-like server power is daunting, given the complexities of calculations per ship, per part and more.

No, thanks. If I wanted to play Civilization, I'd buy that game. KSP is a unique game in its own right and the multiplayer option would change it to something else where KSP would be only a name.

Edited January 11, 2019 by OrbitsR4Sissies
Clarity

[razark]

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

How in the world (literally) would KSP work in multiplayer logistically?

Pretty easily.  There's mods that have done it, to some extent.

 

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

Would there be hundreds of thousands of player-run launch sites?

Why would you need that many?  Players could share a handful, or even a single launch site.

 

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

And again, a world would have hundreds of thousands of player-run launch sites.

Again, why?

 

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

So, a multiplayer Kerbol system has another word to describe it: Colonized. Why would we start to play in a solar system where everyone is everywhere already?

Not necessarily.  As someone said, why would we start in such a system?

 

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

Resolving all three points would turn KSP from a simple, growing space agency simulator into a game type already present: Multiplayer Civilization-type games.

That does not follow.

 

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

And there would always be the players who try to change the rules and destroy your gameplay.

Well, yeah.  Online (and offline) play is like that.  You've never seen someone flip over a Monopoly board?

The solution to that is don't play with those people.  (It also works on and off line.)

 

2 hours ago, OrbitsR4Sissies said:

On the back-end, the idea of KSP requiring Blizzard Entertainment-like server power is daunting, given the complexities of calculations per ship, per part and more.

It sure is.  So why would you even think about it, rather than a sensible multi-player mode?  KSP doesn't have to be a massively multiplayer game.

 

A few players, four or less, playing together, with one player hosting a server and the others connecting to it, and the server admin controls mods/access.  It's not that complicated, and it doesn't involve a massive infrastructure, either real world or game world.

[Tyko]

While they're making it multiplayer I want it to be an RTS/RPG and FPS all in one - heck why not a 4X game too??

 

 

Edited January 11, 2019 by Tyko

[Duck McFuddle]

This has been asked way too many times. There are issues. Squad knows that we want this - just be patient.

[Chumpes]

about time warp...

if time warp is a problem for multiplayer, first multiplayer version could be real time, i.e. no possibility to warp time... players would have to anticipate their move irl =)

 

about part counts...

ships could be represented by a simple spot with ID information, then players could select whether they want to share their ship or not, and other players would have to accept the sharing of other ships. 

[RealKerbal3x]

18 minutes ago, Chumpes said:

about time warp...

if time warp is a problem for multiplayer, first multiplayer version could be real time, i.e. no possibility to warp time... players would have to anticipate their move irl =)

That would make doing anything beyond LKO impossible without waiting for long periods of time IRL.

[Chumpes]

Quote

That would make doing anything beyond LKO impossible without waiting for long periods of time IRL

that is exactly the point, it could make the game even more fun and realistic !

one should wait months before reaching other planets and well anticipate its manoeuvres =)

Edited January 22, 2019 by Chumpes

[Geonovast]

Just now, Chumpes said:

that is exactly the point, it could make the game even more fun and realistic !

Which would clearly work for you.  I know it would work for other people here, too.

The issue is how many people it would work for.  Not many of us can build our lives and schedules around being at our computer at the right time.  It's not going to be worth the developer's time to work on a feature that probably less than 1% of users would use.

Multiplayer should really stay in mod territory.  There are just too many issues for it to be an actual stock release.  You think the game's buggy now?  Imagine if they scrapped working on that, and hurried along a multiplayer feature, regardless of its form.  The people pushing for a multiplayer would be the first in line to complain about it when it's not perfect, despite being told over, and over, and over about all the issues of having multiplayer in a game like this.