Needs addressed please.

[Talavar]

1 hour ago, Spricigo said:

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.

I guess the desire to "compete" could hypothetically cause a problem, if you're intending to knock them out of the sky. My experiences with DMP are strictly cooperative though.. In my scenario, that issue really isn't a problem, as we sync up specifically so we can cooperate together. I guess we are looking at it from two different angles.

[mattinoz]

On 22/02/2018 at 11:14 AM, StrandedonEarth said:

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.

 

Multi-player doesn't mean combat to be competitve. Well not offically anyway. It could offically be a game with with a trade economy. Lay the ground work for mods to take care of both combat and inter-body travel.

It would be a great way to break problem in to pieces. 

[John FX]

Just in case, before anyone starts, there is a whole thread devoted to the time warp issue with multiplayer. If you start to feel the need to talk about it, there is a place for that...

I feel every thread about MP, whatever the original topic, devolves into that discussion eventually.

Back on topic, I have thought for years that Squad would do better by just fronting it out and telling us what they plan to do.

Almost every other game developer does that and accepts some people will be unhappy whatever they do.

Squad seem... sensitive to criticism.

Edited February 24, 2018 by John FX

[Spricigo]

13 hours ago, Talavar said:

I guess the desire to "compete" could hypothetically cause a problem, if you're intending to knock them out of the sky. My experiences with DMP are strictly cooperative though.. In my scenario, that issue really isn't a problem, as we sync up specifically so we can cooperate together. I guess we are looking at it from two different angles.

I'd like to remember what you said when people opposed DMP in another thread:

Quote

making arguments about something, while having no experience with it, is pointless

conclusion: since you have no experience with competitive KSP multiplayer your arguments about it, accordingly your own words, are pointless.

 

Personally, i consider that people can have good reasoning about something  if good info is provided, even without direct experience.

In any case, the last line of your post is correct, we are looking to it from different angles. From your perspective DMP allows for engaging gameplay, from me it don't offer a fraction of what is expected from a multiplayer game.

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, John FX said:

Squad seem... sensitive to criticism.

"Someone will get upset" is a defense used far to often these days.

[Spricigo]

1 minute ago, klgraham1013 said:

"Someone will get upset" is a defense used far to often these days.

unfortunately not only by squad. I hear it disturbingly often in my job as an Inspector (which often requires upsetting someone).

[pandaman]

21 hours ago, Spricigo said:

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.

This ^

As i have said before, it is my opinion that the the most aporopriate method for STOCK multiplayer is for every player to always be at the same point in game time (all warp together), to avoid any paradox or syncing issues.  KSP is grounded in reality, so to allow multiple simultaneous timelines, timescales and paradoxes seems somewhat inappropriate.

However, this doesn't mean that DMP, or any other solutions, are not any good, they are just different.  And to have them available for the players that want to enjoy using them is surely a good thing.  Those that don't like them can just ignore them, no harm done.

[mattinoz]

9 hours ago, pandaman said:

This ^

As i have said before, it is my opinion that the the most aporopriate method for STOCK multiplayer is for every player to always be at the same point in game time (all warp together), to avoid any paradox or syncing issues.  KSP is grounded in reality, so to allow multiple simultaneous timelines, timescales and paradoxes seems somewhat inappropriate.

However, this doesn't mean that DMP, or any other solutions, are not any good, they are just different.  And to have them available for the players that want to enjoy using them is surely a good thing.  Those that don't like them can just ignore them, no harm done.

 

Well if that was the offical multi-player and it handled all the peer to peer multi-player aspects then it would be great grounding. Allow mods to expand on that and concencrate purely on alternative paradox resolution schemes.

While (some) players are synced base code handles it. Mod would not only have to provide the scheme to handle the paradox but also the interface to allow it to happen in the first place as base code would be locked to not allow it to happen. 

KSP is modable and that is a great thing, The best part of the game are those systems which seem to have been designed with that in mind. Treat the stock game is as a platform as much as it is a standalone adverture.

[Spricigo]

14 hours ago, pandaman said:

This ^

As i have said before, it is my opinion that the the most aporopriate method for STOCK multiplayer is for every player to always be at the same point in game time (all warp together), to avoid any paradox or syncing issues.  KSP is grounded in reality, so to allow multiple simultaneous timelines, timescales and paradoxes seems somewhat inappropriate.

However, this doesn't mean that DMP, or any other solutions, are not any good, they are just different.  And to have them available for the players that want to enjoy using them is surely a good thing.  Those that don't like them can just ignore them, no harm done.

My take is different, Stock could allow both methods. Choose when creating a new server.

[pandaman]

2 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

My take is different, Stock could allow both methods. Choose when creating a new server.

Granted, that could be the 'ideal' solution.

But realistically, I don't see them including more than one system as a 'stock' option.

[Talavar]

On 2/24/2018 at 9:01 AM, Spricigo said:

I'd like to remember what you said when people opposed DMP in another thread:

conclusion: since you have no experience with competitive KSP multiplayer your arguments about it, accordingly your own words, are pointless.

 

Personally, i consider that people can have good reasoning about something  if good info is provided, even without direct experience.

In any case, the last line of your post is correct, we are looking to it from different angles. From your perspective DMP allows for engaging gameplay, from me it don't offer a fraction of what is expected from a multiplayer game.

 I just never thought of KSP as being much of a "purposely blow each other up" type of environment. I generally end up with enough explosions as it is.. lol

Edited March 10, 2018 by Talavar

[StrandedonEarth]

On 2/24/2018 at 6:08 AM, Spricigo said:

I hear it disturbingly often in my job as an Inspector (which often requires upsetting someone).

If an inspector (or auditor) isn't upsetting someone at some point, they're doing it wrong...

As far as I'm concerned, I've realized that if Squad isn't mentioning doing something, like MP or "shmelta-vee," then it's not currently planned, and all the whining pleading about it isn't going to change that.

[Spricigo]

16 hours ago, Talavar said:

 I just never thought of KSP as being much of a "purposely blow each other up" type of environment. I generally end up with enough explosions as it is.. lol

i appreciate that for you MP can be mainly cooperative. That is fine.

But different people will have different expectations, and the devs can't just implement something that will cater to a small portion of the playerbase. 

 

2 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

If an inspector (or auditor) isn't upsetting someone at some point, they're doing it wrong...

..or not doing his/her job at all.