Needs addressed please.

[Talavar]

   Both the steam FAQ and the Kerbal EDU FAQ still have multiplayer as a future development endeavor.  Could someone high up in the chain please put this baby to rest, and either say "yes, it's still coming." or "That ship has sailed." Either one would lay expectations to rest.

Edited February 20, 2018 by Talavar

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Not really the best plan for Squad.

Saying no after sort of promising it all this time would create a media circus as well as generate backlash from some players.

Best to leave it up in the air, it may still come to pass after all.

[Spricigo]

"save/craft sharing is multiplayer" </sarcam>

 

The problem with "future development endeavor" is that future has no end.

[klgraham1013]

9 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Saying no after sort of promising it all this time would create a media circus as well as generate backlash from some players.

Eh, we've already had the console port.  The PR couldn't be much worse than that.

Edited February 20, 2018 by klgraham1013

[Spricigo]

4 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Eh, we've already had the console port.  The PR couldn't be much worse than that.

The fact you are contemplating the possibility of it being slightly worse is already jarring. 

[klgraham1013]

8 hours ago, Spricigo said:

The fact you are contemplating the possibility of it being slightly worse is already jarring. 

Nah.  I was thinking that any backlash from "canceling" a non-existent feature would last only a few weeks at most.  Sure, some people would stay unreasonably upset, but that's nothing compared to having a broken console port for, what, a year and a half?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

2 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

Nah.  I was thinking that any backlash from "canceling" a non-existent feature would last only a few weeks at most.  Sure, some people would stay unreasonably upset, but that's nothing compared to having a broken console port for, what, a year and a half?

Sure, but why burn the bridge at all?

After all, multiplayer is still a possibility, it's still on the table. Most likely as a future DLC, but still.

Declaring it dead and over because it's been awhile since it was promised won't accomplish anything but breeding negativity.

[DAL59]

Dark Multiplayer exists

[Spricigo]

18 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Dark Multiplayer exists

And so craft/save sharing.

Just those are not what people have in mind when multiplayer is requested to/promised by the devs.

[klgraham1013]

7 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

After all, multiplayer is still a possibility...

Debatable, but I'll concede the point.

[razark]

45 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

Dark Multiplayer exists

The problem is that it exists as a mod, and is always going to have problems because of the way it needs to handle its tasks.  An integrated multiplayer system would have direct access to the code, and wouldn't rely on various tricks to do the work.

[Gargamel]

Squad has 3 options here:

1) They state they are not planning on implementing MP.  This will be make a lot of people angry and be widely regarded as a bad move.

2) They say nothing, but have some devs working on it.  If they fail, nothing is lost PR wise.

3) They say nothing, and do nothing.  This will continue the status quo, and nothing is lost. 

2 of the 3 options allow them to allocate resources as they see fit, without making a lot of people angry.    So unless they have any major breakthroughs, don't expect them to address the issue at all, aside from sticking to what has been said previously.   

 

- And yes, I replied with a DA quote...

[StrandedonEarth]

There's a fourth option T2 could exercise: Announce the start of development of Kerbal Flight Program, a new game in the Kerbal franchise. It would be based on building aircraft Kerbal style, and using them to engage in multiplayer air combat. While reaching space may be possible,  travel between bodies will not be. The only warp allowed (all that's needed) would be 4x physics warp, if necessary, to get the combatants in range of each other. Of course, combat could be initiated on the planet or moon of choice, but it would stay there.

There. Kerbal Multiplayer, with no warp issues. Because really, isn't that what most MPer's are after? Combat? IMO, anything else would tend to be boring. And trying to turn KSP into an MMO is simply unworkable due to the need to warp.

But canon kerbals are peaceful, so it would have to go by a different name. Gerbil Flight Program.

[Spricigo]

54 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Because really, isn't that what most MPer's are after? Combat? 

Huh?!! Why are you asking after jumping to conclusions?

 

Anyway, if my opinion worth anything for you: I have no interest in KSP combat. Economic competition may be in the table but not combat.

 

[razark]

1 minute ago, Spricigo said:

Economic competition may be in the table...

I'm not sure that would require actual multiplayer KSP, though.  Simply comparing the amount of funds plus "assets" in a save file against other people's at certain points of time would cover it, and be much simpler to implement.

[Capt. Hunt]

On 2/20/2018 at 3:43 AM, Talavar said:

   Both the steam FAQ and the Kerbal EDU FAQ still have multiplayer as a future development endeavor.  Could someone high up in the chain please put this baby to rest, and either say "yes, it's still coming." or "That ship has sailed." Either one would lay expectations to rest.

see where it says "future?"  That means Squad would like to do it sometime during the game's lifespan.  That does not mean they must be working on it non-stop until it happens, it does not mean squad even needs a timeline for implementation.  They only added that to the FAQ because DMP one upped them and showed it was technically possible.  IIRC, no one at squad was ever even considering it seriously before DMP came out.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Capt. Hunt

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, Spricigo said:

Huh?!! Why are you asking after jumping to conclusions?

 

Anyway, if my opinion worth anything for you: I have no interest in KSP combat. Economic competition may be in the table but not combat.

 

Fair enough. It seems to me that that's what most people wanting MP want it for. I've yet to hear of another good reason for MP, since...

1 hour ago, razark said:

I'm not sure that would require actual multiplayer KSP, though.  Simply comparing the amount of funds plus "assets" in a save file against other people's at certain points of time would cover it, and be much simpler to implement.

54 minutes ago, Capt. Hunt said:

IIRC, no one at squad was ever even considering it seriously before DMP came out.

Long ago, when we had DevNote Tuesdays and Harvester ran the show, there was mention that there was work being done on MP, getting the back-end server code written. But that seems to have died a natural death when the dev team experienced a lot of turnover.

Edited February 22, 2018 by StrandedonEarth

[Spricigo]

1 hour ago, razark said:

I'm not sure that would require actual multiplayer KSP, though.  Simply comparing the amount of funds plus "assets" in a save file against other people's at certain points of time would cover it, and be much simpler to implement.

No, it don't require actual multiplayer. However multiplayer give the possibility to make it a bit more elaborated. What if instead an infinity suply of contracts you need to compete with other players to get the most lucratives? Or if only one player can get the world's firsts? What if I can offer contracts to other player?

In any case, lots of consideration and work to implement such features. If the devs decide is a god idea.

[StrandedonEarth]

14 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

What if instead an infinity suply of contracts you need to compete with other players to get the most lucratives? Or if only one player can get the world's firsts?

And then you run into the timewarp problem. But there's another thread for this discussion.

[razark]

18 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

But there's another thread for this discussion.

You don't say...

 

Yes, let's not get into that here, please.

[Capt. Hunt]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Fair enough. It seems to me that that's what most people wanting MP want it for. I've yet to hear of another good reason for MP, since...

Long ago, when we had DevNote Tuesdays and Harvester ran the show, there was mention that there was work being done on MP, getting the back-end server code written. But that seems to have died a natural death when the dev team experienced a lot of turnover.

there were a few projects being done on spare time back then

Edited February 22, 2018 by Capt. Hunt

[Spricigo]

23 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

And then you run into the timewarp problem. But there's another thread for this discussion.

And different problems too. But that is not the subject of this thread. 

[John FX]

On 20/02/2018 at 11:43 AM, Talavar said:

   Both the steam FAQ and the Kerbal EDU FAQ still have multiplayer as a future development endeavor.  Could someone high up in the chain please put this baby to rest, and either say "yes, it's still coming." or "That ship has sailed." Either one would lay expectations to rest.

Hilarious. Asking Squad to be clear about future plans?

Hahaha.

[Talavar]

On 2/21/2018 at 9:30 PM, StrandedonEarth said:

Fair enough. It seems to me that that's what most people wanting MP want it for. I've yet to hear of another good reason for MP, since...

 The allure of working together to build space bases and stations is what keeps this going. my son, my brother, and I have built moon bases together with DMP. Not only that, one person focuses on putting up refueling stations in orbit, and the others haul fuel to it... etc.. it just adds co-op to the mix, and it's really quite fun. Unfortunately it seems that it needs to be hard-coded into the system to function correctly. The  major flaw that DMP has is how it handles movement, and the occasional cloning of ships due to misunderstood communications between the external server and the games inner code. It has to change the data on each persons client from an external source, which seems to cause problems. The timewarp issue is all but completely resolved in DMP, as anyone who has already used it can attest to, so I'm sure Squad could simply do the same thing and put the icing on the cake. Over all though, DMP is an enjoyable experience. Especially since you can run your own server, and only invite friends. (no griefing).. It just really needs fleshed out, or simply integrated into the game itself so it's functioning with the games code instead of trying to manipulate it from the outside.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Talavar

[Spricigo]

3 hours ago, Talavar said:

The timewarp issue is all but completely resolved in DMP

The intrinsic problem with the eternal discussion about "the timewarp issue" is that everyone get it wrong. Timewarp is not an issue, is a solution.

The issue is that the gameworld is, literally, astronomical huge. As result a 'short trip' take hours while a 'long trip' take decades, and the game is all about travelling to different places. But than we add the option to accelerate time and the problem is solved.

When we start to talk about multiplayer someone raise "the timewarp issue". Well, the multiplayer will have timewarp, problem solved. No one need to wait for years to do something.

 

And them we need to face the warpcontrol issue. That is an issue without a totally satisfactory solution.

Everyone agree to warp gives the power for a player to deny when others will warp.

Warp cause desynchronisation  gives the power for a player to deny the opportunity of others to interact with him.

I feel that people that defend any of this solution miss an important point: players may have conflicting goals, their intent may be to compete instead of cooperate. In that case we need to ensure that the warpcontrol rule don't give anyone an unfair edge.

Now, at that point most people either insist that their preferred rule is better or that neither can be applied. I think we need to get over it and realise that is better to have both system to chose between.