Jump to content

KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Bej Kerman said:

My bad. Shoulda made that more clear. Either way, everyone using the same time warp is a terrible idea. Not to mention someone could create lots of accounts to force the server into ridiculous timewarps.

I doubt multiplayer means 20+ players but also I assume banning and the like will be allowed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, if there's limited resources, the lander crew is going to die, or the other player has to wait 2 hours for the lander crew to get home and possibly miss a maneuver. Sometimes I wonder who came up with the idea of everyone using the same warp.

Edited by Bej Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I havent read the whole thread but it might be worth mentioning that Minecraft already has a solution for timewarps in a multiplayer game. Their solution is to require all parties in the server to agree to it. It seems to work fine O_O. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, razark said:

People who don't like paradox in their multiplayer.

Dark Multiplayer works fine. You'd have to be out of your mind to think forced warp is not a bad idea.

5 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

I havent read the whole thread but it might be worth mentioning that Minecraft already has a solution for timewarps in a multiplayer game. Their solution is to require all parties in the server to agree to it. It seems to work fine O_O. 

But that's just setting the skybox, that's not timewarp, and the day in MC is only 10 minutes. Christ... can't we just see that forced warp is a bad idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Dark Multiplayer works fine.

So it completely avoids paradox?  You'd have to be out of your mind to think paradox is not a bad idea.

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Christ... can't we just see that forced warp is a bad idea?

No.  Can't we just see that paradox is a bad idea?

 

People are going to disagree on it.  Simply asserting that your preferred method is The One And Only Correct Solution is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, razark said:

So it completely avoids paradox?  You'd have to be out of your mind to think paradox is not a bad idea.

No.  Can't we just see that paradox is a bad idea?

 

People are going to disagree on it.  Simply asserting that your preferred method is The One And Only Correct Solution is wrong.

What do you mean paradox? Dark Multiplayer doesn't have paradoxes. Do you even know what you mean when you say paradox, or are you just trying to avoid easier solutions that don't lead to your lander crew dying so your friend can warp to that other star system, or lead to one person having to miss their burn? Giving each player their own warp is the only good solution so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

What do you mean paradox?

There is a station in orbit.

A launches a ship into orbit.  B also launches a ship into orbit.

A timewarps ahead, and is now on Day 5, while B is on Day 1.

A now docks to the space station.

Can B also dock to the station on Day 1?  What happens if B does not undock before Day 5 to allow A to dock?  What happens to A's docking situation if B, instead, on Day 3, rams the station, completely destroying it?  What, in that case, did A dock to on Day 5, after the station was destroyed?

 

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Giving each player their own warp is the only good solution so far.

No, keeping everyone to the same timeline is the only good solution. 

You fail to show in any way how this system leads to "your lander crew dying so your friend can warp to that other star system, or lead to one person having to miss their burn".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, razark said:

There is a station in orbit.

A launches a ship into orbit.  B also launches a ship into orbit.

A timewarps ahead, and is now on Day 5, while B is on Day 1.

A now docks to the space station.

Can B also dock to the station on Day 1?  What happens if B does not undock before Day 5 to allow A to dock?  What happens to A's docking situation if B, instead, on Day 3, rams the station, completely destroying it?  What, in that case, did A dock to on Day 5, after the station was destroyed?

Well I don't know, but DMP doesn't have those problems and uses the independent warp system.

4 hours ago, razark said:

You fail to show in any way how this system leads to "your lander crew dying so your friend can warp to that other star system, or lead to one person having to miss their burn".

I'm not waiting for player 1 to land their lander so I can go where I need to go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bej Kerman said:

Well I don't know, but DMP doesn't have those problems...

You don't know the answer, but insist that you have the answer?  That makes no sense.  If you don't know, then you can't claim that the problem does not exist.

 

2 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

I'm not waiting for player 1 to land their lander so I can go where I need to go!

So, the lander crew is going to die because you refuse to play?  That also makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, razark said:
 

You don't know the answer, but insist that you have the answer?  That makes no sense.  If you don't know, then you can't claim that the problem does not exist.

 

So, the lander crew is going to die because you refuse to play?  That also makes no sense.

Have you ever even used DMP? Go use it, then imagine everyone votes for a 100,000x warp while you're in the middle of landing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, razark said:

There is a station in orbit.

A launches a ship into orbit.  B also launches a ship into orbit.

A timewarps ahead, and is now on Day 5, while B is on Day 1.

A now docks to the space station.

Can B also dock to the station on Day 1?

From what I know of DMP no they cannot. They must first sync to the station because it exists "for real" (i.e. in human time) in the future in a changed state.

Edited by 5thHorseman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

imagine everyone votes for a 100,000x warp while you're in the middle of landing something.

Why would you (who is a member of everyone, and would therefore also need to vote for this timewarp level to be implemented) vote for such a timewarp if you're in the middle of such a landing?

 

6 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

From what I know of DMP no they cannot.

Thank you for the answer. 

So, it is indeed a case of paradox, where events in the future prevent events in the past from occurring.  This is what I am opposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, razark said:

Thank you for the answer. 

So, it is indeed a case of paradox, where events in the future prevent events in the past from occurring.  This is what I am opposed to.

I really don't see the problem. If you want your play that diverged from your friends, why are you playing multiplayer?

That may sound rhetorical but I don't want to play MP KSP anyway so it's hard for me to out myself in that head space.  Why would someone not want to be synchronized with the other players at every opportunity, if they had chosen to play with them in the first place? Why would docking first be more important than playing together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

If you want your play that diverged from your friends, why are you playing multiplayer?

To me, the style of multiplayer that keeps getting brought up (everyone in their own time bubble, doing their own thing) seems a lot more like people want to be able to chat with others while playing their own game, and maybe share some screenshots or videos once in a while.  Which seems like it's not even multiplayer at that point.

 

I'm not really big on MP being added in the first place, I just don't think KSP is really the sort of game for it.  But if it's going to be added, it might as well make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, razark said:

To me, the style of multiplayer that keeps getting brought up (everyone in their own time bubble, doing their own thing) seems a lot more like people want to be able to chat with others while playing their own game, and maybe share some screenshots or videos once in a while.  Which seems like it's not even multiplayer at that point.

Except you can sync with people! You've never used DMP and yet you're trying to say the system it uses is garbage because everyone's not forced to do the same things. What are you thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Except you can sync with people! You've never used DMP and yet you're trying to say the system it uses is garbage because everyone's not forced to do the same things.

Can.  You can.  Or, you can all play in separate timelines and throw causality out the window.

And I'm not saying that it's garbage.  I'm saying it allows paradox that I prefer not to have in multiplayer KSP.  You prefer your version, I prefer mine.  I'm not the one saying that mine is the only possible answer, or that someone have to be out of [their] mind to prefer a different system.

 

50 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

What are you thinking?

That I want multiplayer KSP without paradox.  I could have sworn I mentioned that repeatedly.

I'm also thinking that you haven't answered my question as to how your lander is going to die, since you would have a vote in a shared timewarp system. 

 

Anyway, you seem dead set on denying that anyone could have a different opinion from your ABSOLUTELY CORRECTTMOne And Only multiplayer system, so this conversation is going to go nowhere except around in circle.  Good evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dale Christopher said:

I havent read the whole thread but it might be worth mentioning that Minecraft already has a solution for timewarps in a multiplayer game. Their solution is to require all parties in the server to agree to it. It seems to work fine O_O. 

Minecraft is not KSP. You don't have people doing stuff that heavily relies on time progression.

1 hour ago, razark said:

That I want multiplayer KSP without paradox.  I could have sworn I mentioned that repeatedly.

Then just hit the sync button? And don't play with people who refuse to hit the sync button? It's as easy as not playing with griefers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

Minecraft is not KSP. You don't have people doing stuff that heavily relies on time progression.

And yet you do have people routinely (probably every 10mins consecutively for hours at a time) easily coordinating timewarps almost without a thought about it. In Minecraft the assembly buildings aren’t even instanced, everyone constantly works on their projects in real-time with frequent easily agreed upon timewarps. So..... what the problamo?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dale Christopher said:

And yet you do have people routinely (probably every 10mins consecutively for hours at a time) easily coordinating timewarps almost without a thought about it. In Minecraft the assembly buildings aren’t even instanced, everyone constantly works on their projects in real-time with frequent timewarps. So..... what the problamo?

Problamo is that in Minecraft it doesn't matter what the time of day is. You can do almost anything at any time in that game. That's why people can coordinate time changes so easily in Minecraft.

KSP doesn't have that same luxury, because you have to deal with live physics, transfer windows, waiting for maneuver nodes, rover voyages and more. Forced timewarp (voting is still forced on those who don't want it) severely bogs down progression in the game.

Picture this textbook problem:

  • A wants to drive a rover from point A to point B which is an hour away.
  • B wants to do a mission to Duna, but his transfer window's in a week.
  • C is already en-route to a Munar orbit, arriving in two days.

Alright, in that case we let C go first, because their mission won't take long, and they're coming up first. Then comes B, because theirs won't take too long either. Last but not least comes A, whose mission will take an hour. Assuming nothing went wrong, A only had to wait about 10-15 minutes to do their task. Now B and C both have to wait an hour before they can do anything, and after that, one of them will have to wait for the other too.

Suddenly we have to prioritise who can do what and when, and the whole game slows to a 1x crawl. The waiting is only compounded by however many failed attempts and reloads have to happen. Furthermore, once you have even primitive life support systems in the game, you need to plan way ahead and pack loads of food, otherwise your Kerbals could be waiting in orbit for years before they can do anything.

While it may still be tolerable on a server with only three players, once you start adding more and more, the list of prioritised tasks grows and grows, as does the waiting time. I don't wanna have to wait for hours on end for the other players to finish what they were doing, because that's not fun for me in any way. They don't wanna have to wait for me, because that's no fun for them either.

Edited by Bartybum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...