KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[pandaman]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I wrote a post above and am entire thread about how it can be solved. You can read that to pass the time.

But that's no indication of the solution they will 'actually' use.

Theorising can be fun, but it's very easy to not see flaws or problems until you actually try something.  Happens to me a lot at work where an obvious, common and easy solution just doesn't quite work in the current specific circumstances.

[Monger]

5 minutes ago, pandaman said:

Happens to me a lot at work where an obvious, common and easy solution just doesn't quite work in the current specific circumstances.

I feel you. Had this multiple times in the last few weeks. 

Every complex problem has a simple solution that is wrong. 

[Pthigrivi]

As SWDennis says nothing set in stone but this is some new info anyway: 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Pthigrivi said:

As SWDennis says nothing set in stone but this is some new info anyway: 

Hopefully "16 players online" finally puts to rest some of the over-expectations we sometimes see here for MP.

[Vl3d]

9 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Hopefully "16 players online" finally puts to rest some of the over-expectations we sometimes see here for MP.

If that's what the devs decide to implement, I will support it 100%. But... there's a big difference between "what can be implemented" and "what the game could be". I came up with some ideas and solutions for a large scale multiplayer KSP, I always described what KSP could be in my vision. If it's not that.. I will enjoy the game just the same. The important aspect for me is the community and the dev team has been exposed to ideas about KSP having a persistent universe where we all build and play together.

And I have a simple question. If there are only 16 players per hosted server... who will you - the KSP player - play with? Because I don't have 15 friends that play KSP.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

Just now, Vl3d said:

If that's what the devs decide to implement, I will support it 100%. But... there's a big difference between "what can be implemented" and "what the game could be". I came up with some ideas and solutions for a large scale multiplayer KSP, I always described what KSP could be in my vision. If it's not that.. I will enjoy the game just the same. The important aspect for me is the community and the dev team has been exposed to ideas about KSP having a persistent universe where we all build and play together.

Dude no worries I love your creativity. 

[Bej Kerman]

Just now, Vl3d said:

If that's what the devs decide to implement, I will support it 100%. But... there's a big difference between "what can be implemented" and "what the game could be". I came up with some ideas and solutions for a large scale multiplayer KSP, I always described what KSP could be in my vision. If it's not that.. I will enjoy the game just the same. The important aspect for me is the community and the dev team has been exposed to ideas about KSP having a persistent universe where we all build and play together.

It doesn't matter what the devs were exposed to, MMOs are just too big for KSP 2.

[Kerbart]

11 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Hopefully "16 players online" finally puts to rest some of the over-expectations we sometimes see here for MP.

Extrapolating where we are now that is going to require hosting on a quantum computer with 16 TB of RAM and an optic fiber network.

[Bej Kerman]

It's a big ask even for big companies. Especially so if you have vessels comprised of hundreds or thousands of parts! I'm just saying, tempered expectations are good.

[Vl3d]

Article about multiplayer:

<<<"When you are playing with other people and they're aligned with you and your space agency, you'll be able to share technologies, craft rockets, and things like that," Simpson said. "So that you could, for example, work on different components of the same rocket. I could specialize in landers, my friend could specialize in rovers, and someone else could specialize in stages."

Simpson said that he doesn't know how players will use the new multiplayer functionality, as the community has played the game in unique and unexpected ways before. Kerbal Space Program 2 is a complex game with sandbox mechanics, so he believes that much of the multiplayer experience will be asynchronous. "I'll sit down for an hour and I'll work on building up a colony somewhere and then when my friends come check in into this to the same [server], they'll be exploring and then they'll see [that I've made] a colony over on Duna," Simpson said. "Maybe they check it out and drop off some resources for me and we can help each other out by flying resource missions to different places and delivering them to the same colony. It's that sort of thing where we're all kind of working together to build out a civilization."

Intercept Games doesn't plan to include any combat systems, so don't expect to launch an assault on a rival space agency's colony when multiplayer first launches.>>>

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/kerbal-space-program-2s-multiplayer-will-let-you-have-full-on-space-races/1100-6511655/

Well if the experience is asynchronous.. then it's possible to have a lot more players than just 16.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Vl3d

[Truebadour]

In my opinion, 16 players is more than enough. Imagine the strain on the game if 16 players collaborating meet at the same place and burn together towards DebDeb with interstellar class Daedalus ships.

[Bej Kerman]

22 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

Article about multiplayer:

<<<"When you are playing with other people and they're aligned with you and your space agency, you'll be able to share technologies, craft rockets, and things like that," Simpson said. "So that you could, for example, work on different components of the same rocket. I could specialize in landers, my friend could specialize in rovers, and someone else could specialize in stages."

Simpson said that he doesn't know how players will use the new multiplayer functionality, as the community has played the game in unique and unexpected ways before. Kerbal Space Program 2 is a complex game with sandbox mechanics, so he believes that much of the multiplayer experience will be asynchronous. "I'll sit down for an hour and I'll work on building up a colony somewhere and then when my friends come check in into this to the same [server], they'll be exploring and then they'll see [that I've made] a colony over on Duna," Simpson said. "Maybe they check it out and drop off some resources for me and we can help each other out by flying resource missions to different places and delivering them to the same colony. It's that sort of thing where we're all kind of working together to build out a civilization."

Intercept Games doesn't plan to include any combat systems, so don't expect to launch an assault on a rival space agency's colony when multiplayer first launches.>>>

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/kerbal-space-program-2s-multiplayer-will-let-you-have-full-on-space-races/1100-6511655/

Well if the experience is asynchronous.. then it's possible to have a lot more players than just 16.

No. They said at most 16 players, divided into at most 4 teams. If they said it was just 16 players per synced instance they would have said so. Temper your expectations - please!

[Stoup]

We don't know how we might be able to tweak those kinds of settings- If for example there's a multiplayer mode that's not about 4 separate space agencies, equivalent to basically just a multiplayer sandbox where everyone works on the same team, maybe more could work on a drop in-drop out kinda basis. I can see there being a cap to people playing simultaneously, but if any given server is capped to 16 it'd be awkward to, for example, try to hop around different servers only to see that all 16 "slots" are taken.

Lots can change between now and multiplayer release! Being subject to change works both ways, and if KSP2 is as friendly to modding as we hope there may be plenty the community could do.

 

[GaussFlux]

57 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

And I have a simple question. If there are only 16 players per hosted server... who will you - the KSP player - play with? Because I don't have 15 friends that play KSP.

well, it did say "up to" 16 players, you probably could just have 4 people, one per team, or 2 teams with 2 people each. 

 

[Monger]

Besides the resource discussion: 16 players in the same kerbol system become quite chaotic in no time. Think of all the crafts you need to keep track of. If they have to agree on a shared time acceleration, this quickly becomes a coordination nightmare. So limiting to four teams with 4 players each is, I dare to say, even ambitious. 

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Monger said:

If they have to agree on a shared time acceleration, this quickly becomes a coordination nightmare.

Maybe I suck at coordinating, but that sounds like a nightmare even with two players.

Playing stellaris, which has a simple simulation speed setting, we were basically always playing at the same speed, even with 2/3 players talking in Discord the whole time.

[ABritInSpace]

I suggest people take a look at Luna Multiplayer's implementation of warp "subspaces" in KSP 1 - a bit like each player has their own timelines they can warp out of and merge together

[Vl3d]

16 minutes ago, ABritInSpace said:

I suggest people take a look at Luna Multiplayer's implementation of warp "subspaces" in KSP 1 - a bit like each player has their own timelines they can warp out of and merge together

I suggest you read all the 65 pages of this thread.

[ABritInSpace]

48 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I suggest you read all the 65 pages of this thread.

Sorry, didn't see the length of this thread!

Just giving my uninformed opinion, would like to know the pros / cons of such a system tho.

[Gargamel]

6 minutes ago, ABritInSpace said:

Sorry, didn't see the length of this thread!

Just giving my uninformed opinion, would like to know the pros / cons of such a system tho.

That’s perfectly fine.     It’s an old thread full of people throwing around outlandish theories.    Nobody is really expected to read every post in a thread before posting.   

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

That’s perfectly fine.     It’s an old thread full of people throwing around outlandish theories.    Nobody is really expected to read every post in a thread before posting.   

"All your theories are wrong! Here's the only way multiplayer can work!"

Proceeds to spend 3 pages arguing for their personal flavor of MP.

 

A new user appears, "All your theories are wrong! Here's..."

 

Multiply that by 20.

[Vl3d]

Right.. Nate talked about 4 agencies on Kerbin with 1-4 players each. That confirms 16 multiplayer. My 1000+ players MMO dream ends here (for now). But I still hope for the gameplay to allow all the fun things I've imagined.

 

[Drakenred65]

16 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

As SWDennis says nothing set in stone but this is some new info anyway: 

Good find! While it's good that they have 4 launch centers. There's still questions...

 

* Are they clones of each other or does each have its own style.

 

* Are they upgradable and if so how is that handled..

 

* Also obvious but how is time warp handled, or is it functionally ignored apart from locations of planets ships any other objects and moons .

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

"All your theories are wrong! Here's the only way multiplayer can work!"

Proceeds to spend 3 pages arguing for their personal flavor of MP.

 

A new user appears, "All your theories are wrong! Here's..."

 

Multiply that by 20.

That's why there's forums!

 

4 hours ago, Gargamel said:

That’s perfectly fine.     It’s an old thread full of people throwing around outlandish theories.    Nobody is really expected to read every post in a thread before posting.   

I wonder when we need to start locking some of the mega threads and just start launching new ones.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

Right.. Nate talked about 4 agencies on Kerbin with 1-4 players each. That confirms 16 multiplayer. My 1000+ players MMO dream ends here (for now). But I still hope for the gameplay to allow all the fun things I've imagined.

 

3:57 Nate Sympson: There is this sort of... ehm... Asynchronous play we expect a lot of people to do.

And then proceeds to make an example as how he could export He3 from his colony to Chris's (Nertea) while he's asleep.

4:37 Nate Simpson: "For the timewarp thing we have a good solution"

 

If that isn't confirmation that they solved the timewarp problem with some sort of asynchronous system I don't know what it is.

[Pthigrivi]

27 minutes ago, Master39 said:

If that isn't confirmation that they solved the timewarp problem with some sort of asynchronous system I don't know what it is.

I mean I think a lot of us suspected that was probably the only way this could work. And honestly the scale of 16 max sounds about right to me. With that many players contributing to a world even when others are offline you're already going to have a lot going on.