KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Geschosskopf]

4 hours ago, mattinoz said:

Why does the field have to be level?

Because there will be tournaments, ladders, even deathmatch.  Some of this will doubtless be organized and the winners recognized by the devs as a promotional thing.  Thus, any glitch that might be exploited into a competitive advantage has to be eliminated.

 

2 hours ago, TBenz said:

Multiplayer has worked perfectly fine in other creative sandbox games, like Minecraft and Space Engineers, notably because those games still allowed the players to form like minded groups where modding and community moderating allowed tailor fitted experiences, same as what you get with single player. 

Even if the intent of MP in KSP is to be co-op, there will still be competition between teams.  

 

23 minutes ago, MDZhB said:

I am glad to see that you recognize that people want different things out of a video game. For example, I would like to be able to play collaboratively with my friends. I know this may seem strange to you, but if you don't like it, you can just not play MP. And, if something about MP changes your experience in a negative way, "get the mod for it and let everybody else enjoy the game as they see fit." After all, KSP 2 is supposed to be even more moddable than KSP, so you should have no issues.

Whether I or anybody else chooses to play MP or not makes no difference.  The mere existence of MP will unavoidably throw a huge wet blanket of conformity on everybody, like it or not.  No event organizer wants things settled because 1 team knows an exploit which not even the judges know about so the rules don't outlaw it.  So all the game's charming little quirks will go away.  Basically, this will become Human Space Program instead of Kerbal Space Program.  If you want that, you should just play Orbiter.

 

23 minutes ago, MDZhB said:

Right, because no one ever argues about how KSP should be balanced despite being single player

If you think that's bad now, just wait until MP goes live and somebody wins a tournament for knowing a loophole.

 

2 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

• Griefing seems to be a common theme in multi-player sandbox games. Astroneer seems to suffer from it really badly. Someone will have developed a game (solo) for weeks, invites someone over to join their world and sees it destroyed in a matter of minutes.

Only play with trusted friends then  

==============================

Anyway, nothing I say is going to stop MP from happening--it's already an announced feature.  So I accept that.  I'm just saying, don't expect things to stay the same.  MP is going to have a greater impact on the nature of the game itself, and on the personality of this forum, than anything that's happened in KSP's long history.  Not all of those changes are going to be good.  In fact, IMHO few of these changes will be good.  But it is what it is.

[TBenz]

11 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Because there will be tournaments, ladders, even deathmatch.  Some of this will doubtless be organized and the winners recognized by the devs as a promotional thing.  Thus, any glitch that might be exploited into a competitive advantage has to be eliminated.

Uh, what? Seriously, KSP deathmatch? Do you... Do you understand how any other multiplayer sandbox game works? This is borderline nonsense. There are plenty of ways to do multiplayer that don't involve the kind of arena competition that you seem to associate with "multiplayer". You might want to better familiarize yourself with how a mechanic works in other games if you are going to start a thread spouting doom about it.

[Radar]

Why are we even talking about "I don't like it", "I like it". You like it, you will use it, you don't then don't use it..

The International Space Station wasn't built by one person, nor one nation, so what's to discuss again .   

[Cheif Operations Director]

49 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I look forward to it. Mostly because it will put the constant begging and "still no multiplayer" posts to rest.

On a more serious note:

• I'll admit that there's a certain amount of glee and schadenfreude when it comes to issues like time-warping. MP supporters always claim that it's the easiest aspect of multi-player to solve, followed by five different solutions, each completely incompatible with any of the other ones.
• Griefing seems to be a common theme in multi-player sandbox games. Astroneer seems to suffer from it really badly. Someone will have developed a game (solo) for weeks, invites someone over to join their world and sees it destroyed in a matter of minutes.

At the same time, I can look at the MS Flightsim community where multi-player has been a source of unbridled creativity in ways Microsoft probably never imagined but enabled by keeping the interface open. Navigation and flight management software would use the multi-player interface to exchange data with the game, traffic controllers could manage multiple simmers, and I've always enjoyed the round-the-world relay races between the various large flightsim websites. I'm sure the KSP community can come up with some creative ways to use an open multi-player interface!

Griefing is hard in KSP due to the travel times and target zones. I agree with you but I can not see some 8 year old just do around dropping orbital bombardment devices onto a pin sizes colony. They can do damage but let me real here, I 9 year old is not going to sit there for 2 hours to align the orbital trajectory of a space station kill vehicle. A mechanism where the host can revert to a save may be good and prevent this. 

[Geschosskopf]

27 minutes ago, TBenz said:

Uh, what? Seriously, KSP deathmatch? Do you... Do you understand how any other multiplayer sandbox game works? This is borderline nonsense. There are plenty of ways to do multiplayer that don't involve the kind of arena competition that you seem to associate with "multiplayer". You might want to better familiarize yourself with how a mechanic works in other games if you are going to start a thread spouting doom about it.

Dude, I've been playing online since the 1980s.  Hell, the 1st MMOs were PvP flightsims, even back then.  Before browsers, Windows, and even the "light web" because it was all the original "dark web" back then (except we didn't yet call it the "web" because the whole www thing hadn't yet happened).  So yeah, I think I know considerably more about how MP works, and the effects it has on games and their communities, than you do.

Sure, KSP deathmatch will be a thing.  Certainly it won't be officially sanctioned but look at all the BDA tournaments and challenges that have been going on for years.  This fairly large player base has doubtless been itching to fly their own craft rather than let the AI do it.  And even if there's never a BDA-type mod for KSP2, you can still make quite effective missiles with I-beams and Sepratrons.

But forget the deathmatch.  Even if most folks spend most of their MP time co-oping with the same few like-minded friends, there can't help but be community-wide events.  It would be highly surprising if the devs don't organize some themselves to spotlight the feature and attract attention.  But whether they do or not, the community certainly will.  It opens up a whole new type of challenge.  Which team can accomplish a set goal the fastest/cheapest/coolest?  Or more to the point, say it's a US vs. USSR space race competition.  Then 1 team will say the parts available to them at the various tech nodes suck compared to the parts available to the other team, giving the other team an unfair advantage.  So a balance overhaul will happen, resulting in 2 parts with essentially identical stats and differing only in appearance, just to make MP contests "fair and balanced" even if most players don't participate and don't what this change in their SP worlds.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Geschosskopf

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Dude, I've been playing online since the 1980s.  Hell, the 1st MMOs were PvP flightsims, even back then.  Before browsers, Windows, and even the "light web" because it was all the original "dark web" back then (except we didn't yet call it the "web" because the whole www thing hadn't yet happened).  So yeah, I think I know considerably more about how MP works, and the effects it has on games and their communities, than you do.

Sure, KSP deathmatch will be a thing.  Certainly it won't be officially sanctioned but look at all the BDA tournaments and challenges that have been going on for years.  This fairly large player base has doubtless been itching to fly their own craft rather than let the AI do it.  And even if there's never a BDA-type mod for KSP2, you can still make quite effective missiles with I-beams and Sepratrons.

But forget the deathmatch.  Even if most folks spend most of their MP time co-oping with the same few like-minded friends, there can't help but be community-wide events.  It would be highly surprising if the devs don't organize some themselves to spotlight the feature and attract attention.  But whether they do or not, the community certainly will.  It opens up a whole new type of challenge.  Which team can accomplish a set goal the fastest/cheapest/coolest?  Or more to the point, say it's a US vs. USSR space race competition.  Then 1 team will say the parts available to them at the various tech nodes suck compared to the parts available to the other team, giving the other team an unfair advantage.  So a balance overhaul will happen, resulting in 2 parts with essentially identical stats and differing only in appearance, just to make MP contests "fair and balanced" even if most players don't participate and could care less.

I would not mind an ICBM was system where you need to hit your target from the otherside of the planet, who ever hits the most targets wins

you would need to design your ICBM going into it

[TBenz]

53 minutes ago, Geschosskopf said:

Dude, I've been playing online since the 1980s.  Hell, the 1st MMOs were PvP flightsims, even back then.  Before browsers, Windows, and even the "light web" because it was all the original "dark web" back then (except we didn't yet call it the "web" because the whole www thing hadn't yet happened).  So yeah, I think I know considerably more about how MP works, and the effects it has on games and their communities, than you do.

Sure, KSP deathmatch will be a thing.  Certainly it won't be officially sanctioned but look at all the BDA tournaments and challenges that have been going on for years.  This fairly large player base has doubtless been itching to fly their own craft rather than let the AI do it.  And even if there's never a BDA-type mod for KSP2, you can still make quite effective missiles with I-beams and Sepratrons.

But forget the deathmatch.  Even if most folks spend most of their MP time co-oping with the same few like-minded friends, there can't help but be community-wide events.  It would be highly surprising if the devs don't organize some themselves to spotlight the feature and attract attention.  But whether they do or not, the community certainly will.  It opens up a whole new type of challenge.  Which team can accomplish a set goal the fastest/cheapest/coolest?  Or more to the point, say it's a US vs. USSR space race competition.  Then 1 team will say the parts available to them at the various tech nodes suck compared to the parts available to the other team, giving the other team an unfair advantage.  So a balance overhaul will happen, resulting in 2 parts with essentially identical stats and differing only in appearance, just to make MP contests "fair and balanced" even if most players don't participate and don't what this change in their SP worlds.

This is nonsense. Everyone will be able to unlock the tech nodes. Any serious competition will start everyone off at the same tech level and let them unlock during the challenge, with the sole exception of intentionally allowing starting tech differences as a handicap. If anyone wants to complain about the tech nodes they don't have unlocked having better parts, the answer is simple, "unlock those tech nodes then". This is not a classed based game where you pick a class and are stuck with it for the match. Everyone has access to all the parts through playing them game, there's no need to balance everything that draconianly. 

Please go spend some time playing Space Engineers or a similar multiplayer sandbox game. Your experience with PvP flightsims from the 80s is almost entirely irrelevant here. 

[Kerbolitto]

I don't think that MP will only exist to create competition between players.

This is not a PvP game, sure maybe they'll add some kind of space race, goals to quickly build a colony or whatever. But as much as I played WoW to finish its storyline or to crush other players in Pvp, I did not forget how we used to spend nights chatting around a campfire at BootyBay, discovering hidden zones, or simply learning to play as a team.

What I mean is , no matter if KSP2 introduces some kind of space competition. I'll be with my friends racing on Dres canyons, doing barrel rolls in jets, deploying outposts with team mates .

I do think the game will be based round kooperation, just like KSP. Some people are better at orbital mechanic, some build more capable spacecrafts. Doesn't mean we're bragging or diminishing what others have accomplished. This is not a game you can learn in 10 hours and aim to grind a leaderboard. For most of us, it will always be about space exploration.  

[MDZhB]

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Whether I or anybody else chooses to play MP or not makes no difference.  The mere existence of MP will unavoidably throw a huge wet blanket of conformity on everybody, like it or not.  No event organizer wants things settled because 1 team knows an exploit which not even the judges know about so the rules don't outlaw it.  So all the game's charming little quirks will go away.  Basically, this will become Human Space Program instead of Kerbal Space Program.  If you want that, you should just play Orbiter.

1. I fail to see how MP will create a blanket of conformity, when KSP 2 will support mods better than KSP. You have said it yourself, that people who want more features in KSP can simply install mods to get what they want. This is how it has always been, and this is how it will continue to be. Life support? Mod. Telescopes? Mod. More airplane parts? Mod. Fancy game-breaking sci-fi engines? Mod. Conformity and open moddability are not compatible.

2. Generally speaking, exploits are not "charming little quirks," and generally speaking, people do not play video games for "charming little quirks." People play video games for solid design in mechanics, story, art, and other aspects. Most people do not play KSP so they can build infini-gliders and kraken drives. Even if there are some people who do this, such bugs have been removed in the past and have not caused issue. infini-gliders do not exist (or at least not the way they used to) anymore, since we got atmospheric physics updates. I didn't see anyone quitting because they could no longer exploit the game engine.

3. Taking away "charming little quirks" will not turn KSP 2 into Orbiter. Less glitchy ≠ more realistic. If this were true, all good first person shooters would be hyper-realistic military simulations. They are not.

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Dude, I've been playing online since the 1980s.  Hell, the 1st MMOs were PvP flightsims, even back then.  Before browsers, Windows, and even the "light web" because it was all the original "dark web" back then (except we didn't yet call it the "web" because the whole www thing hadn't yet happened).  So yeah, I think I know considerably more about how MP works, and the effects it has on games and their communities, than you do.

KSP 2 is not a MUD, it is not a MOO, it is not an FPS, it is not an RTS. This is not Rogue, this is not Half Life, this is not Quake, this is not Age of Empires. It is a creative space flight simulation video game. Do not compare it to things that it is not even remotely similar to.

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Sure, KSP deathmatch will be a thing.  Certainly it won't be officially sanctioned but look at all the BDA tournaments and challenges that have been going on for years.  This fairly large player base has doubtless been itching to fly their own craft rather than let the AI do it.  And even if there's never a BDA-type mod for KSP2, you can still make quite effective missiles with I-beams and Sepratrons.

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Certainly it won't be officially sanctioned

I 100% agree with you here. I seriously doubt that the owners/developers of KSP 2 will sanction any kind of PvP gameplay. Therefore, it is a completely moot point. If the community wants to hold PvP matches, we will do like we have always done, and come up with our own rules and limitations. In fact, I completely fail to see how letting players fly their own airplanes in BDA competitions would make them somehow worse. They are already well regulated without any kind of help from SQUAD.

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

But forget the deathmatch.  Even if most folks spend most of their MP time co-oping with the same few like-minded friends, there can't help but be community-wide events.  It would be highly surprising if the devs don't organize some themselves to spotlight the feature and attract attention.  But whether they do or not, the community certainly will.  It opens up a whole new type of challenge.  Which team can accomplish a set goal the fastest/cheapest/coolest?

0. Yes, let's forget it, because it's not something that will ever matter to the KSP 2 devs.

1. We already do this kind of thing here on the forums, in case you haven't noticed, and it works out pretty well in single player.

2. From what we have seen of previous multiplayer mods, they play similarly to single player, because others are usually too far away in space/time to do anything to you. If this is how KSP 2 multiplayer works, I think it is reasonable to expect that challenges will not be too significantly different from how they operate now.

3. However, without knowing exactly how KSP 2 multiplayer will look, it is impossible to say what kind of challenges will exist, and therefore it is impossible to know whether these challenges will work out well. We simply do not have enough information to be convinced about anything either way.

1 hour ago, Geschosskopf said:

Or more to the point, say it's a US vs. USSR space race competition.  Then 1 team will say the parts available to them at the various tech nodes suck compared to the parts available to the other team, giving the other team an unfair advantage.  So a balance overhaul will happen, resulting in 2 parts with essentially identical stats and differing only in appearance, just to make MP contests "fair and balanced" even if most players don't participate and don't what this change in their SP worlds.

This is completely absurd. This hypothetical challenge is so poorly designed that it would never be officially supported. Why? Because it is inherently unbalanced, exactly as you have already pointed out. I do not know of a single time that a game community has willingly designed and played an awful variant of their game, then forced the developers to change the game to support it. There is no way the KSP 2 devs would rebalance the game for such a low quality community forum challenge.

On that note, the KSP 2 devs will not redesign their game for their own challenges either. The challenges will be designed around the gameplay, not the other way around.

Edited August 21, 2019 by MDZhB

[Kerenatus]

To think 2 people remotely controlling 1 vehicle is nightmarish enough lol.

Maybe controlling different vessels simultaneously?

[mattinoz]

44 minutes ago, Kerenatus said:

To think 2 people remotely controlling 1 vehicle is nightmarish enough lol.

Maybe controlling different vessels simultaneously?

At what point does a Kerbal become a vessel in their own right?

Is a zero gravity IVA any different to a zero-G EVA

2 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

Because there will be tournaments, ladders, even deathmatch.  Some of this will doubtless be organized and the winners recognized by the devs as a promotional thing.  Thus, any glitch that might be exploited into a competitive advantage has to be eliminated.

Any one chosen for such will be aware of the risk / reward of various tactics. Otherwise, why would anyone watch?

Sport is not-even the best team wins on the day and other such one-liners filling the dead air of commentary.

 

[GoldForest]

I'm kind of hoping that the multiplayer is multi-manned control oriented. I know this could turn into a mess, but hear me out. 

Multi-manned control would need the primary flyer (Maker of the vessel) to allow access to controls. And they can limit it, say only allow co-pilots to mess with science experiments or maybe they'll give them control over the flight controls while you go do the science. 

Ride-along multiplayer, where the co-pilot does nothing, would be nice as well. Some people just like to be with a friend and not really do anything. 

Separated controls for docked vessels, now this could get really wonky, but two pilots being able to control their own spacecrafts while docked would be a nice feature, and there could be an option to allow for a single pilot control. 

[Vlyan]

For me i'll waiting for a nice coop gameplay, with deep exploration and colonies to build, i'm sure it will be fun to have cooperatives tasks.

And as long as ksp2 have private and public servers, i really think you always get the gameplay you want. And i'm sure the server's creator can ban a bad player behaviour.

 

[GoldForest]

3 minutes ago, Vlyan said:

For me i'll waiting for a nice coop gameplay, with deep exploration and colonies to build, i'm sure it will be fun to have cooperatives tasks.

And as long as ksp2 have private and public servers, i really think you always get the gameplay you want. And i'm sure the server's creator can ban a bad player behaviour.

 

It will more than likely have player hosted servers (Servers hosted on your computer instead of a dedicated server), though I don't doubt they will put out dedicated server software to run KSP servers off dedicated server hardware. 

[fulgur]

I do not think multiplayer would be a good idea as it would be very easy for someone to do something which completely wrecks your complex mission, even by accident.

IE someone says 'I need ore! Where can I get ore? Oh yes, [other player] has a mining ship in Duna orbit. Let's just fly it down to the surface and mine some ore to refuel my mothership.' At which point they realise it is an Ike miner and crash it.

A year later [other player]'s mothership gets to Duna orbit, circularises and looks for their Ike miner. Where is it? Oh, [first player] thought it was a Duna miner and it is now in pieces on the surface.

Somebody's mission has been wrecked by another person's honest mistake in not realising that the Terrae IV (I built a ship called this once) is an Ike miner, and is not equipped for Duna flight, despite being parked in Duna orbit.

Edited August 21, 2019 by fulgur

[putnamto]

would be pretty cool if we had some kind of host/server system, where the host runs a server(like minecraft) but each player has their own space agency, so you can collaborate on things, or race to see who can land the mun first, etc.

[GoldForest]

5 minutes ago, fulgur said:

I do not think multiplayer would be a good idea as it would be very easy for someone to do something which completely wrecks your complex mission, even by accident.

IE someone says 'I need ore! Where can I get ore? Oh yes, [other player] has a mining ship in Duna orbit. Let's just fly it down to the surface and mine some ore to refuel my mothership.' At which point they realise it is an Ike miner and crash it.

A year later [other player]'s mothership gets to Duna orbit, circularises and looks for their Ike miner. Where is it? Oh, [first player] thought it was a Duna miner and it is now in pieces on the surface.

Somebody's mission has been wrecked by another person's honest mistake in not realising that the Terrae IV (I built a ship called this once) is an Ike miner, and is not equipped for Duna flight, despite being parked in Duna orbit.

One word: Saves.

No multiplayer I know doesn't have a save system or reverting system. If the owner of the server or the player hosting the server okays it, everything can be reset to the way it was. 

[sh1pman]

9 minutes ago, fulgur said:

I do not think multiplayer would be a good idea as it would be very easy for someone to do something which completely wrecks your complex mission, even by accident.

 

That's the fun part!

6 minutes ago, putnamto said:

would be pretty cool if we had some kind of host/server system, where the host runs a server(like minecraft) but each player has their own space agency, so you can collaborate on things, or race to see who can land the mun first, etc.

Or grief each other's space centers. Like sending an ICBM to their VAB! KSP2 MUST have anarchy servers!

[Tw1]

9 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

MP means the end of ladder drives and K-drives.  It probably also means the end of creative part-clipping and EVERY SINGLE THING we've always done to push the game into unplanned directions.  No more "Weird Science" that every once in a while has a questionably useful purpose.,  All that will have to go away to keep the MP players on a level field.

As someone with a fair amount of experiments into kerbal physics, I suspect a lot of these will disappear anyway, assuming they are actually re-doing the physics. So much of it comes from oversights and limitations.  Some things I wouldn't mind sacrificing, like some of the wobbliness that results from the vessel node structures, like parts passing through each other. I want to have to deal with structural issues, but I wouldn't mind if they come from more realistic behaviour. 

I wouldn't mind ridgid connection between all overlapping parts, which would end exploits I've often used for robotics, and the K-drive. But then, we'd be building less like it's a game and more like it's something real.

It is a shame to say goodbye to the many things we've discovered, and that unique kerbal world. But I will be surprised if there are not all new forms of kerbalphysics^tm  just waiting to be discovered. It will be a fresh start with new things to be discovered. 

 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Tw1

[fulgur]

28 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

One word: Saves.

No multiplayer I know doesn't have a save system or reverting system. If the owner of the server or the player hosting the server okays it, everything can be reset to the way it was

The only problem with this is that if you don't realise that [first player] has crashed your miner, then if you have been doing stuff afterwards you don't exactly want to do [F9] and lose the space station you painstakingly constructed in Laythe orbit. And if you do [F9], you might be destroying something some other player built since, which makes it rather annoying.

There are many problems with multiplayer. I prefer the R∃MEMBER thread's Forgotten-style proposed multiplayer, in which people take turns and after a few kerbal years, you swap to another player with everything which exists becoming space junk which must be found by the next Cycle's players. If this sounds interesting, check out @greenTurtle1134's thread.

14 minutes ago, Tw1 said:

It is a shame to say goodbye to the many things we've discovered, and the unique kerbal world. But I will be surprised if there are not all new forms of kerbalphysics^tm  just waiting to be discovered. It will be a fresh start with new things to be discovered. 

KSP is continuing under the benevolent jurisdiction of SQUAD while Star Theory is developing KSP2. So that's OK.

Edited August 21, 2019 by fulgur

[Technical Ben]

30 minutes ago, fulgur said:

The only problem with this is that if you don't realise that [first player] has crashed your miner, then if you have been doing stuff afterwards you don't exactly want to do [F9] and lose the space station you painstakingly constructed in Laythe orbit. And if you do [F9], you might be destroying something some other player built since, which makes it rather annoying.

There are many problems with multiplayer. I prefer the R∃MEMBER thread's Forgotten-style proposed multiplayer, in which people take turns and after a few kerbal years, you swap to another player with everything which exists becoming space junk which must be found by the next Cycle's players. If this sounds interesting, check out @greenTurtle1134's thread.

KSP is continuing under the benevolent jurisdiction of SQUAD while Star Theory is developing KSP2. So that's OK.

I guess crashes on existing launch pads/colonies could be (lampshaded) by a construction/resource deficit. So the kerbals rebuilt it (during the timeskips/game time), but it uses up mining materials/metals. So you'd still get to continue playing, but lose some progress.

[Geschosskopf]

4 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Or grief each other's space centers. Like sending an ICBM to their VAB! KSP2 MUST have anarchy servers!

I expect this and dogfighting will be rather popular.  I rather expect there will be special MP maps with multiple launch sites, 1 per player/faction.  This would allow any sort of game you want without folks having to argue over who gets to use the launchpad at the moment.  Everybody could be on the same team cooperatively building the same civilization.  Or you could have competing factions in a space race setting.  And of course, deathmatch  

 

4 hours ago, Tw1 said:

It is a shame to say goodbye to the many things we've discovered, and that unique kerbal world. But I will be surprised if there are not all new forms of kerbalphysics^tm  just waiting to be discovered. It will be a fresh start with new things to be discovered. 

No doubt you're right.  However, I doubt any new discoveries will last long enough to become parts of the culture.

 

4 hours ago, fulgur said:

The only problem with this is that if you don't realise that [first player] has crashed your miner, then if you have been doing stuff afterwards you don't exactly want to do [F9] and lose the space station you painstakingly constructed in Laythe orbit. And if you do [F9], you might be destroying something some other player built since, which makes it rather annoying.

Yeah, folks would have to develop there own save/revert protocols.  I see this more as a "house rules" sort of thing, however, than as an issue for the devs.  And not an insurmountable problem.  The key to avoiding such problems is good communications.  Vox would help a lot, assuming the players could speak a common language  

[coyotesfrontier]

For those who are worried about multiplayer destroying KSP's sense of community, I highly disagree with your thoughts. Take the Modded Minecraft community as an example: While a large portion of the community plays multiplayer mod packs, a fair bit of it plays custom installs, such as myself. In fact, I even share my custom install with my friend, and we play together. There's no judgement about what mods you use, an accomplishment is an accomplishment, no matter what. Don't like the mods on a popular server? Just create your own and invite people!

I suspect the formation of mod packs will be a necessary advancement for KSP2's community, though. Mod. Minecraft had a similar licensing issue during it's early days (Look up sengir technic drama), but in order for multiplayer modded servers to be a thing, modpacks are going to be needed. Or there could be a CKAN-like, TF2-esque system where mods are automatically downloaded when you connect to a server, but that's quite hard to do.

[Shmauck]

 

10 minutes ago, coyotesfrontier said:

For those who are worried about multiplayer destroying KSP's sense of community, I highly disagree with your thoughts. Take the Modded Minecraft community as an example: While a large portion of the community plays multiplayer mod packs, a fair bit of it plays custom installs, such as myself. In fact, I even share my custom install with my friend, and we play together. There's no judgement about what mods you use, an accomplishment is an accomplishment, no matter what. Don't like the mods on a popular server? Just create your own and invite people!

Yeah, I would want it to be much like Minecraft. I always wanted to have a common KSP where I can play with my sons who live at their mother's place. 

[Francois424]

Personally, I just want to "Host" a new Multiplayer game and play it myself.

I give the password to my 2 RL friends that played KSP (one got to the Mun ans Eve, the other actually only had fun building stations in LKO) so they can join while I am on (or not, since I leave the PC running 24/7) and also build their things.
Maybe we can contribute to each-other's stations and things.   Of course that would mean I'd have to act as the "Blunderbird" expert for them as I a by far the best player of the trio, haha.

On another note, it would be nice if there would be an MP mode where we each start on a different moon of Jool, or the new Saturn analogue (or anything with enough moons, in our case that's three) and we can do the space-race thing or just the achievement thing.
It would be cool as well if we could flag as "allies", "neutral" or  "cold-war" as you could with these old multi-players of the late nineties/early 2000's.  Ally mean you could share ressources, and build togetter, neutral is we don't care about each other, cold war is a competition of whom claims each body (manned landing only) first.

It's exiting just talking about it, haha.