General thoughts on a multiplayer mode for ksp without timewarp

[Tyko]

HAHA! I've just realized why the devs will (likely) never give a straight "no" answer...because if they did people like our friend @BadLeo here wouldn't stop asking anyway. 

As much as I've enjoyed our little chat I'm going to go play my single player KSP game that I love so much and leave you here seething in your discontent with one less person to whine to. Why should I waste my time when I'm already getting what I want  

Goodbye!

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Tyko

[BadLeo]

2 minutes ago, Tyko said:

HAHA! I've just realized why the devs will (likely) never give a straight "no" answer...because if they did people like our friend @BadLeo here wouldn't stop asking anyway. 

As much as I've enjoyed our little chat I'm going to go play my single player KSP game that I love so much and leave you here seething in your discontent with one less person to whine to. Why should I waste my time when I'm already getting what I want  

Goodbye!

 

Good. Bye.

[lrd.Helmet]

23 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

Would like some of those examples, If you don't mind.

Uncharted, Bioshock 2, Mass Effect & Elder Scrolls online come to mind. I'm not saying the multiplayer is poorly executed mind you, but regarding active player base and actually being relevant these additions were totally worthless. And in my opinion a waste of resources.

Quote

That is basically the same argument of Tyko, but way more polite. I am aware that there are other games out there. I don't think this is an argument because a) I don't want to play those other games; b) I think KSP is much more than what its surface shows; and c) I don't think the devs themselves would like this argument, that in essence implies it is better for people that like the base game but want to extract more out of it to look for the competition rather than sticking with their product in what it can offer. The disagreement here is this last part: what KSP can offer, but, again, that needs devs wording for us to either shut this debate entirely or go with it in another direction.

I think it just boils down to what KSP; must have, should have, could have or won't have. The question is where multiplayer is and more specifically (to stay ontopic) where activities without timewarp are on that list. And where development currently is (I think the "must have" stage is complete, as the devs have said that ksp is feature complete. And that we are right now in the "should have" stage, seeing as all the visual design elements are getting a makeover and it looks like there is an actual art-direction.) 

Quote

About those phrases "what it should be" and "other things aren't a part of that", I have been seen them, in some way or another, throughout many arguments here. They denote expectations and entitlement (not in a pejorative sense, mind you, please don't take it as that) over KSP that might or might not reasonably come from what devs let out when they communicate, and because I am not as active in the community as most of the people in this discussion, I cannot infer that with the degree of precision I would like to. But, either way, I think it is reasonable that people feel like that, they like KSP as it is and they will resist any changes they believe are counterproductive to their beloved game. I just don't think it is reason enough, on its own, to not discuss something. Again, devs may come and say "yeah, it doesn't fit the game as we envision it", and then it's done, nothing more to add on the issue. But, on something so substantial and that have been asked in many ways and for many reasons since KSP came out, I believe it is important that we hear from them.

I don't really agree with that, I think most people are not really irrationally hating on changing or adding things. It's just that people feel differently about what is important and having to add mp (for example) would take time away from developing other things. 

And the devs don't really need to say anything, because for the simple fact that there are loads and loads of suggestions and it would be a day job just to keep track and respond and discuss everything that is talked about. Not saying I wouldn't want to hear from them, but just that it isn't really practical. In my line of work clients/customers who want to be kept in the loop and take a disproportional amount of time to please don't really make my life easier (and most are dumped as soon as the project is finished, lol ).

[Hodo]

LOL a mission to Duna launched outside of the prime window, lets say launched the same day as this game launched... I think the mission would FINALLY be returning to Kerbin at this point.

[Gaarst]

Even though it's the most discussed "issue" with multiplayer, the timewarp system is not even close to being the biggest problem related to multiplayer. Servers, netcode, actually programming the thing seem like much more important things in the way, in comparison timewarp is a "non-issue".

With that said, I think playing KSP without timewarp would be incredibly boring. Build your rocket, spend 10 mins launching it and that's about it. Want to go to a station? Wait for an hour or so to rendez-vous. To the Mun? 6h. Minmus? 2 days. Duna? 2 months. Jool? Over a year. With nothing but eventual small correction burns to do in between.
Waiting over an actual year for the 5 minutes of insertion burn at Jool is ludicrous, no sane person/company would advocate that as a decent solution. Yes you can cheat your way there but that defeats the entire "original" purpose of the game (building rockets and flying them, which is how KSP is advertised). Maybe you don't care about designing a ship to go to Jool and just want to blow stuff up there, but that's just your vision of the game. What about the people who want to build a "realistic" space program RP and care about designing, planning and flying their missions?
The strength of KSP is that you can do pretty much what you want, even more so using mods. Even if you disagree that KSP's purpose is just to build craft able to perform interplanetary missions with realistic-ish physics, Squad has to accommodate for these people (mostly because AFAIK they are the most numerous); then there's the aero people which have plane parts and plenty of mods, the realism people with the RO suite, the warfare people based around BDA, and so on... Squad takes care of the rocket building/flying part and enables the community to easily design mods to do what they can't (Squad endorsing mods and the 2 or 3 lines about modding support in each changelog are proofs of that). Not putting weapons in the stock game doesn't prevent the warfare people to get a mod that does it; removing timewarp from multiplayer does effectively prevent the rocket people from going anywhere that isn't Kerbin. Someone could and would make a mod for timewarp, but if it's already in the game, why would you remove it in the first place?

[Vexillar]

Just my own opinion here... I'm not about to tell everyone else how they should play.  Have your own fun!

That said... I don't really see how multiplayer can work within the game as it is.

Aside from all the time synch issues and server infrastructure, etc. etc. etc., me myself and I simply don't want to spend (real world) time carefully building and honing a workable ship, planning a mission, crewing it up with my favourite, faithful Kerbal Krew, carefully guiding it into the perfect trajectory, waiting.. waiting... (no timewarp)... till I get to a nice, equatorial orbit of Jool...

...then have some Griefer deliberately smash it all to bits.  Nope.  Not going there.

 

However... a separate game or game mode where we could import our ships and fly around, meet up, build co-operative space stations, yup, I'd kind of like that. 

But there'd have to be a completely different underlying gameplay that either:

1. prevents "bad" players spoiling it for the rest - which would mean what?  Indestructible ships?  How would that work in-game?  It would certainly make landings easier, but then what skill would there be?  Can my Kerbals get in someone else's landed ship and fly it?  What would the "owner" think of that?
2. where there's much less investment (real world time, Kerbal time, funds, Krew) involved and we accept that every time we send a ship out there'll be someone who wants to destroy or steal it.
3. ditto but the whole aim of the game is shooty-shooty kill kill so it doesn't matter.

None of those seem too appealing to me.

Like I said, just my opinion.  Other views are valid.

[Cassel]

What if we could jump into the SOIs of other planets instead of using timewarp?

It seems to me that I could play without timewarp on a low orbit or surface of Duna.

[Vexillar]

 

2 minutes ago, Cassel said:

What if we could jump into the SOIs of other planets instead of using timewarp?

Like... have a warp drive like facility?  That could solve some problems.

[Cassel]

1 minute ago, Vexillar said:

 

But there'd have to be a completely different underlying gameplay that either:

 

1. prevents "bad" players spoiling it for the rest - which would mean what?  Indestructible ships?  How would that work in-game?  It would certainly make landings easier, but then what skill would there be?  Can my Kerbals get in someone else's landed ship and fly it?  What would the "owner" think of that?
2. where there's much less investment (real world time, Kerbal time, funds, Krew) involved and we accept that every time we send a ship out there'll be someone who wants to destroy or steal it.
3. ditto but the whole aim of the game is shooty-shooty kill kill so it doesn't matter.

None of those seem too appealing to me.

Like I said, just my opinion.  Other views are valid.

1. If there was no UI tag, finding a ship or base of another player would be difficult in solar system. The tag could only appear for players on the "friend list".

2. And that would be the driving force behind this game. If it was still possible to dig a tunnel and hide base from opponents.

3. BDArmory is a good addon. In multiplayer, there should be space-weapons to defend against evil people.
There would always be the possibility of arming your space station/base/ship, and if someone outside your friends list approaches, Kerbals would automatically open fire.

3 minutes ago, Vexillar said:

 

Like... have a warp drive like facility?  That could solve some problems.

More like eve online, jump gates. To jump to another SOI you have to reach the orbit on which the jump gate circulates.

Or less sci-fi you have to fly to the gateway-station on the moon and then you choose the target planet, and AI using some booster/ship designed for such purposes will push you to the trajectory you picked. After finishing the flight and "cut scene of flight", you appear with your ship docked at the gateway-station of Duna. Problem solved?

[Vexillar]

Space is big, yes, even in the miniaturised Kerbal system.  So I kind of like where you're going.  But (apart from learning real-life international relations) the thought of running a defence budget alongside my research program is disconcerting.  And what if I'm out at work when a harmless non-friend happens by?  I find lots of unidentified debris lying around my depleted anti-lander battery and some red-faced (or would they be dark green?) kerbals explaining that they thought it was a threat?  Hmmm... convince me some more  .

[BadLeo]

1 hour ago, lrd.Helmet said:

Uncharted, Bioshock 2, Mass Effect & Elder Scrolls online come to mind.

Except for ES Onine, the rest I completely agree with you. ESO is a failure (as much as it pains me to see that as a long term fan of the franchise) for many, many reasons, but it was conceptually designed as a MMORPG, so MP has less to do with its failure than poor design choices and implementation, among other things.

1 hour ago, lrd.Helmet said:

And the devs don't really need to say anything, because for the simple fact that there are loads and loads of suggestions and it would be a day job just to keep track and respond and discuss everything that is talked about. Not saying I wouldn't want to hear from them, but just that it isn't really practical. In my line of work clients/customers who want to be kept in the loop and take a disproportional amount of time to please don't really make my life easier (and most are dumped as soon as the project is finished, lol ).

There's truth to that, to be honest. But it still would be dependent upon devs' priorities and their vision for the future of KSP development more than about how much we ask them to make it happen, which brings us to the discussion again: knowing if it fits their vision is either an educated guessing game or a matter of simply stating it. I would like it to be stated. As long as it isn't, it is an open question to some extent and we all will indulge into that educated guessing game again.

2 hours ago, lrd.Helmet said:

I don't really agree with that, I think most people are not really irrationally hating on changing or adding things.

I did not say they are irrational. But our feelings play a big part on whether or not we accept innovation, no matter what is the topic being discussed. And exactly because people feel different I want to talk about and hear about it.

53 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Even though it's the most discussed "issue" with multiplayer, the timewarp system is not even close to being the biggest problem related to multiplayer. Servers, netcode, actually programming the thing seem like much more important things in the way, in comparison timewarp is a "non-issue".

I don't think it is a non-issue. It is certainy not the only one, and, as you say, maybe not even the biggest one, as it has been pointed out above. Cost/benefit ratio in developing the feature is probably the main consideration, which to some extent involves all of those things. Maybe not servers if it is developed as a local MP only, and this is what I suggest here, not because I wouldn't like it to be a server based massive online MP, but because for the sake of argument I assume that to not be feasible or to not be efficient. It is all a matter of conjecture, but that I brought up exactly because as soon as you raise the question of MP people come up with the argument that timewarp prevents it. Ok, then, remove the issue and let's see what comes to light.

1 hour ago, Gaarst said:

Maybe you don't care about designing a ship to go to Jool and just want to blow stuff up there, but that's just your vision of the game. What about the people who want to build a "realistic" space program RP and care about designing, planning and flying their missions?
The strength of KSP is that you can do pretty much what you want, even more so using mods. Even if you disagree that KSP's purpose is just to build craft able to perform interplanetary missions with realistic-ish physics, Squad has to accommodate for these people (mostly because AFAIK they are the most numerous); then there's the aero people which have plane parts and plenty of mods, the realism people with the RO suite, the warfare people based around BDA, and so on... Squad takes care of the rocket building/flying part and enables the community to easily design mods to do what they can't (Squad endorsing mods and the 2 or 3 lines about modding support in each changelog are proofs of that). Not putting weapons in the stock game doesn't prevent the warfare people to get a mod that does it; removing timewarp from multiplayer does effectively prevent the rocket people from going anywhere that isn't Kerbin. Someone could and would make a mod for timewarp, but if it's already in the game, why would you remove it in the first place?

That misses the point entirely. MP without timewarp won't prevent people from doing missions with timewarp. They won't be able to do it in MP, though, not without long waiting that are not reasonable. But, IF MP without timewarp is the only one possible, THEN it would still be valuable because the game allows you to do more stuff than just those missions. That is the point I'm making. With that in mind, the bold passage is completely backwards. MP without TW will not prevent people to do missions in single player, but no MP whatsoever detracts from a vast amount of experience the game could offer to a lot of people, even though it, for the sake of the point I'm making, hadn't had a TW feature. I don't know if the way I put things isn't being clear enough, because a lot of people seems to be hitting at least partially the same conclusion as you are, although to me it misses the point of this suggestion/conjecture entirely.

1 hour ago, Vexillar said:

However... a separate game or game mode where we could import our ships and fly around, meet up, build co-operative space stations, yup, I'd kind of like that. 

It would not be a separete game mode, at least not in the sense that sandbox, science mode and career mode aren't separate, they just have different rules. But it would play more or less like that. It wouldn't take anything away from the game, it would add just another way, and with substantial difference from the others, to play KSP. And it would provide the modding community with many more potential and even probably further more developmente for the base game, for expansions and maybe for a sequel of KSP.

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

What if we could jump into the SOIs of other planets instead of using timewarp?

It seems to me that I could play without timewarp on a low orbit or surface of Duna.

My suggestion for that was a functionality tat would be similar to HyperEdit mod. You would skip the mission planing because of the long time waiting involved. It is not a perfect solution, but a compromise IF it had to be a MP without timewarp.

[Gaarst]

30 minutes ago, BadLeo said:

That misses the point entirely. MP without timewarp won't prevent people from doing missions with timewarp. They won't be able to do it in MP, though, not without long waiting that are not reasonable. But, IF MP without timewarp is the only one possible, THEN it would still be valuable because the game allows you to do more stuff than just those missions. That is the point I'm making. With that in mind, the bold passage is completely backwards. MP without TW will not prevent people to do missions in single player, but no MP whatsoever detracts from a vast amount of experience the game could offer to a lot of people, even though it, for the sake of the point I'm making, hadn't had a TW feature. I don't know if the way I put things isn't being clear enough, because a lot of people seems to be hitting at least partially the same conclusion as you are, although to me it misses the point of this suggestion/conjecture entirely.

I might have missed the point a little then, yeah. Back on topic.

If your postulate ("MP with timewarp is impossible") is true, then MP without timewarp amounts to a limited version of KSP, which hinders a big part of possible gameplay; but then the issue is not "MP without timewarp vs. no MP", it is "developing MP without timewarp vs. not developing MP and doing something else" which changes a lot. Is an "incomplete" MP implementation better than spending time on another feature (assuming the development time will be spent on something else)? It's a matter of how much you value MP against other features, I personally think that any implementation of MP is not worth the trouble (I'm only speaking for myself here) and that Squad would do better doing something else, whether MP is to include timewarp or not.
From Squad's point of view, it's a matter of deciding if implementing MP without timewarp is a good move, in the sense of "Cool, we finally have MP in KSP, thanks Squad!" vs. "MP is terrible I can't even go to other planets, you are terrible Squad!". Again, because I think most people play KSP for the missions and would play multiplayer to create cooperative space programs, the negative feedback may outweigh the positive.

[BadLeo]

2 hours ago, Gaarst said:

I might have missed the point a little then, yeah. Back on topic.

If your postulate ("MP with timewarp is impossible") is true, then MP without timewarp amounts to a limited version of KSP, which hinders a big part of possible gameplay; but then the issue is not "MP without timewarp vs. no MP", it is "developing MP without timewarp vs. not developing MP and doing something else" which changes a lot. Is an "incomplete" MP implementation better than spending time on another feature (assuming the development time will be spent on something else)? It's a matter of how much you value MP against other features, I personally think that any implementation of MP is not worth the trouble (I'm only speaking for myself here) and that Squad would do better doing something else, whether MP is to include timewarp or not.
From Squad's point of view, it's a matter of deciding if implementing MP without timewarp is a good move, in the sense of "Cool, we finally have MP in KSP, thanks Squad!" vs. "MP is terrible I can't even go to other planets, you are terrible Squad!". Again, because I think most people play KSP for the missions and would play multiplayer to create cooperative space programs, the negative feedback may outweigh the positive.

Yes. On point. About the negative feedback vs. positive feedback, though, I would say it kind of is a matter of managing people's expectations to some extent. As it has been discussed before, it is impossible to please everyone in every aspect. Of course, if the outweigh is too big, it is probably best that it is not done, but we can't just measure that relation by our own opinions or by superficial discussions. If that is what would take for the devs to consider such an hypothetical feature, then a more extensive pooling and discussion would be needed to make an informed decision about it.

Of course the best case scenario is that the effort to develop MP doesn't get in the way of other things to be done in the game and that it includes every single feature of the base game, including timewarp. And I can see why people point out that if those two conditions aren't true, or at the very least partially true, than it is not worth. I wouldn't say they are wrong, I just say that it is a position that take some aspects of the game in consideration over others. "It's a matter of how much you value MP against other features", as you and others correctly pointed out. It is a prioritization choice that has its reasons to be. If this was politics I would say it is an orthodox position, risk averse but rational about the fact that KSP isn't "WIP" anymore. But I would just like to argue that it doesn't mean other positions aren't viable and valid for their own reasons and that they shouldn't be completely disregarded, at least in principle. In the end, discussions over it will be a matter of opinion on what is worth of being prioritized -  least, of course, someone comes up with data and citations, than it is not just opinion anymore.

Edited October 18, 2018 by BadLeo

[Kernel Kraken]

I really wouldn't mind it- a lot of the challenges here are BDAc competitions and I think it would be really cool to be able to do that in real time. I think it would be cool if it was a mod restricted to Kerbin or something.

[Aquaticfantastic]

Me and a friend actually play a Hotseat style of multiplayer with KSP, while far from perfect can be pretty fun.

Basically we set an objective, say the target is the highest circular orbit around Kerbin, then set restrictions, for example:

15 minute built time

20 part limit

no nukes

We then take in turns to built our craft with a timer, while the other goes and keeps themselves entertained elsewhere so we don't see each others designs beforehand.

Then we launch both crafts and see who achieves the most.

Not the kind of multiplayer we're looking for but we've had lots of fun with this!

Sort of like our own little KSP mini challenge's

[Aeroboi]

Why not introduce some in game vote based time acceleration thingy.

The way it works is that every player starts in 1x timerate *duh* Whenever someone joins 1x timerate is resumed for obvious reasons.

Now imagine 2 modes, the first one being suggested by Rocketinmypocket earlier in this thread to complement physical timewarp. Everyone will select their preferred physical time acceleration. Now, if you have it at (4x) and everybody else has selected no time acceleration then it won't be activated. If all the others have (2x) and you the only one having (4x) the game will run at (2x), you get the picture.

With on rails timewarp there can be a in game voting mechanism. If people want to timewarp they can use "timewarp to here, soi change, node"
If other people would want to do on rails time acceleration they have to activate a timewarp destination themselves. Everyone in the session will have to vote "yes" if there is more then one person in the session that has selected a timewarp destination.

When everyone does anyone in that session will timewarp at the fastest setting until anybody arriving soonest at the timewarp destination will have everybody halt when that person (a) decides to by selecting to do this with the intention do change orbit or decelerate and (b) there is another satellite on a possible intersect course at the destinations SOI.

If neither is the case the whole party will continue to timewarp. Anyone within that session will have to have it's game halted to do maneuvering and the game will have to be re-voted for time acceleration each time this happens. Using Teamspeak and a Chatbox anyone can take extra effort in being able to join in with random people and so that there is always a method of communication to delegate anyone willing to process through time acceleration.

Since this game is played by sensible people where session moderators are *again* sensible people I assume such a system is managed adequately.
A few notes on this. Don't be turned away on this one. Out of time acceleration you can still perform stuff in the SPH and VAB. Isn't that where 95% of all the action takes place?

So if 20 people are in line to do time acceleration 18 of them are actively playing, at least, in the VAB and SPH and perhaps near the surface on a planet.
At other times things can be cozy, after several session votes and herding a whole party to Moho it is cooperative sun bathing 4EVA.

What's there to not agree about, tell me?

[zebidia kerman]

I would have it so that the player that hosted the game would be in complete control of timewarp.

[dreadanaught]

On 10/18/2018 at 10:14 AM, Cassel said:

If there was no UI tag, finding a ship or base of another player would be difficult in solar system. The tag could only appear for players on the "friend list".

It would not be hard to drive a rover around and find it, or even better, on planets and moons with atmospheres, fly a self-refueling plane or something around at low-medium altitude, and simply see the base, in just a day or two. This would be especially effective in finding large bases, which are typically more expensive, contain more crew, and have other important functions such as science, a mining station, or a planetary operations center (a base for smaller stuff to operate through, for example, a relay for small rovers with limited antenna strength). Using a probe, whether plane or rover, would also be very effective for finding bases on planets where white (the color that a large portion of parts are) is very distinctive against the surface color, such as Eve (purple), Kerbin (green and blue, except for the polar icecaps), or Duna (red, except for the polar icecaps).

On 10/18/2018 at 10:14 AM, Cassel said:

BDArmory is a good addon. In multiplayer, there should be space-weapons to defend against evil people.
There would always be the possibility of arming your space station/base/ship, and if someone outside your friends list approaches, Kerbals would automatically open fire.

Wouldn't the "evil people", a.k.a. griefers also then have access to those weapons? Couldn't they then build some kind of orbital bombardment system or bomber or something equipped with large payloads of said weapons, to use against others? In addition, if I was a griefer trying to destroy say, a mun base, assuming I have already found the base using the method above, I would launch a base of my own, carrying a bunch of small, cheap, expendable probes, and a one large, armored, and weapon-bearing probe, land the base within navigation range of the base I am trying to destroy, but outside of the automatic engagement range for that base, and send the probes, the cheap, expendable ones first, towards the base, one by one, and just keep doing it until the base runs out of ammo for its weapons. Then, the base would be effectively unarmed, since it cannot fire on me due to lack of ammo, and I could send a single vehicle to destroy it at close range. at this point, when sending the larger vehicle used to destroy the base, even if I, as the griefer, did not have access to BDArmory, I could still destroy the base after depleting its ammo by flying something into it, using stock missiles, building and deploying some kind of battering ram, using a stock bomber to drop something on it, a ballistic missile launched from either ground or orbit, or some combination thereof, all of which are easily accomplished without any mods.

[Cassel]

27 minutes ago, dreadanaught said:

It would not be hard to drive a rover around and find it, or even better, on planets and moons with atmospheres, fly a self-refueling plane or something around at low-medium altitude, and simply see the base, in just a day or two. This would be especially effective in finding large bases, which are typically more expensive, contain more crew, and have other important functions such as science, a mining station, or a planetary operations center (a base for smaller stuff to operate through, for example, a relay for small rovers with limited antenna strength). Using a probe, whether plane or rover, would also be very effective for finding bases on planets where white (the color that a large portion of parts are) is very distinctive against the surface color, such as Eve (purple), Kerbin (green and blue, except for the polar icecaps), or Duna (red, except for the polar icecaps).

Bases on land would be easier to find, but that's not a problem if the game limits the funds of each player as it is in a career where you have to make contracts to make money.
But to hit the base in orbit is a miracle, you would not only have to spot it without using the UI, but still adjust your orbit and speed.

 

27 minutes ago, dreadanaught said:

Wouldn't the "evil people", a.k.a. griefers also then have access to those weapons? Couldn't they then build some kind of orbital bombardment system or bomber or something equipped with large payloads of said weapons, to use against others? In addition, if I was a griefer trying to destroy say, a mun base, assuming I have already found the base using the method above, I would launch a base of my own, carrying a bunch of small, cheap, expendable probes, and a one large, armored, and weapon-bearing probe, land the base within navigation range of the base I am trying to destroy, but outside of the automatic engagement range for that base, and send the probes, the cheap, expendable ones first, towards the base, one by one, and just keep doing it until the base runs out of ammo for its weapons. Then, the base would be effectively unarmed, since it cannot fire on me due to lack of ammo, and I could send a single vehicle to destroy it at close range. at this point, when sending the larger vehicle used to destroy the base, even if I, as the griefer, did not have access to BDArmory, I could still destroy the base after depleting its ammo by flying something into it, using stock missiles, building and deploying some kind of battering ram, using a stock bomber to drop something on it, a ballistic missile launched from either ground or orbit, or some combination thereof, all of which are easily accomplished without any mods.

If every player starts the same amount of money then it would be hard for you. Also for destroying  bases of other players, he will not get anything, you can do it once, because you will not be able to afford it anymore.
The second thing is reputation, everyone in the solar system will find out who you are, and if multiplayer will be tied up with steam accounts, each copy of the game = one account, so good luck :-)
 

[BadLeo]

22 hours ago, Aeroboi said:

What's there to not agree about, tell me?

In my opinion, nothing. It would be the perfect solution to reconcile timewarp feature with MP gameplay. I just proposed MP without timewarp in the hypothetical scenario that it is it what's holding MP back, which  i'm not sure is the case anyway. I would probably add a mechanism to vote kick players that decide to hold everyone back on timewarp as a form of grief, but that would probably not even be necessary in case MP is local.

17 hours ago, zebidia kerman said:

I would have it so that the player that hosted the game would be in complete control of timewarp.

That would also be a nice solution. Probably easier to implement, too.

[Johan-c]

I just had this random thought, what about having a multiplayer mode that takes us a little step closer to how real world space programs work?

 

Say some friends and I wanted to play.  One loves designing and launching spaceplanes, another the same for rockets.  Yet another likes playing around with orbital mechanics, while another enjoys the field work involved in gathering surface samples and other science data.  One might enjoy logistical challenges, i.e. designing stations & refinery systems for different operational situations, and getting help from some of the others to get the parts made, and launched to where they need to be?

 

The timewarp problem doesn't go away, but it also doesn't affect everyone: someone building rockets in the VAB/SPH doesn't care what date it is in the game.  Nor, actually does the guy gathering data from some remote biome.  Though perhaps he cares how fast time is going by if he's counting down to launch his biome hopper or fire up his rover to go get some more samples from close by.

[dreadanaught]

19 hours ago, Cassel said:

Bases on land would be easier to find, but that's not a problem if the game limits the funds of each player as it is in a career where you have to make contracts to make money.
But to hit the base in orbit is a miracle, you would not only have to spot it without using the UI, but still adjust your orbit and speed.

1

I understand that, and will admit that finding any orbital bases, other than maybe massive stations (because of the lag of getting fairly close to them in an active vessel, but that would still be highly unreliable), and only an advanced astrophysicist would be able to figure out the orbit based on observing a station visually, but land bases are still pretty common.

19 hours ago, Cassel said:

If every player starts the same amount of money then it would be hard for you. Also for destroying  bases of other players, he will not get anything, you can do it once, because you will not be able to afford it anymore.
The second thing is reputation, everyone in the solar system will find out who you are, and if multiplayer will be tied up with steam accounts, each copy of the game = one account, so good luck :-)

2

Couldn't a griefer start out the same way, and just earn money the same way as other players to start out, and just wait until they have enough money and parts unlocked to just launch two missions, one for griefing someone, and the other to complete a mission to get funds to continue the game?

Reputation is mainly affected by contracts and successes/failures, and not everyone in the solar system would be looking at your reputation, so the main method of people finding out would be whoever was griefed telling them. However, if there were no UI tags, as you mentioned earlier, then they would not be able to find out who did it from the debris and vehicles used, except for maybe by identifying the flags, but those can be turned off. and would have to be online to witness it at all. also, you do understand that not everyone has KSP through Steam, right.

[RixTheRocketScientist]

I still think timewarp is possible. I think it could work if the host of the game was in control, and the other was not. Or both people could vote to initiate and stop whenever either one wanted.

[Jalaris]

I think one of the only solutions to having a multiplayer KSP without timewarp (which isn't possible in a multiplayer game) would be to have engines similar to those in the Expanse TV show and books. Basically, they are incredibly efficient engines; google "Epstein Drives" if you are curious. Basically, you burn to increase your speed and get there fast to the "half-way" mark to your destination, then you flip and burn the other way to slow down.

Other than that, not sure how to have a realistic multiplayer KSP without a way to timewarp. It would take too damn long to do anything; not to mention there is absolutely nothing to do while you are waiting. Hellion, the multiplayer space survival game with decently realistic physics, gets around this by having a "warp" function on ships. Although I am less a fan of this option as it is 100% un-realistic and against the KSP style. The Expanse-like way might be possible someday, and it maintains the KSP like gameplay.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Jalaris

[LorenLuke]

I mentioned this in another thread, and I'll mention it here. I believe the best solution to be a DEFCON style timewarp, where it always goes as fast as the slowest time acceleration any one player has selected. My ideal case for multiplayer would be a server of no more than 6-8 players at a given time. Furthermore, if 'multiplayer' is 'one player per kerbal' and they're all on the same craft or you have one person on a craft and there remaining players are ground crew (mission control), again you find no issue with time warp because of the focus on the singular vessel. Multivessel multiplayer might have issue, but since it moves at the slowest speed (not always 1x) that any player has selected, it's a workable fix, if not most ideal. That said, nobody ever was jarred into a reactive/reflexive panic because things started going slower than they intended.