KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[Bartybum]

12 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If everyone's locked in the same time and you're on a 5 year long mission while others are on hours long missions why not come back to your mission and do something else in the meantime? 

Because I don’t want to wait days or even weeks in the real world before I have a chance to continue what I was doing. What if I don’t have time to play KSP every day? What happens if my connection drops out when it’s my turn? Does the whole server pause, or do I suddenly have to wait another few weeks in real life before I have another chance to do my thing?

If I have to wait months in real life to do even basic interplanetary stuff (not even mentioning interstellar voyages) then what’s the point?

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bartybum

[mcwaffles2003]

34 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Because I don’t want to wait days or even weeks in the real world before I have a chance to continue what I was doing. What if I don’t have time to play KSP every day? What happens if my connection drops out when it’s my turn? Does the whole server pause, or do I suddenly have to wait another few weeks in real life before I have another chance to do my thing?

If I have to wait months in real life to do even basic interplanetary stuff (not even mentioning interstellar voyages) then what’s the point?

We'll when you imagine the scenario are you playing with people or are you playing around people? In the situation of with I assume theres a common goal so if theres a long mission the collective group would like it completed, in the latter version I don't know why you're on a multiplayer server.

As for:

36 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

What happens if my connection drops out when it’s my turn? Does the whole server pause, or do I suddenly have to wait another few weeks in real life before I have another chance to do my thing?

I dont see how any multiplayer mechanic changes a connection drop, nor how it's relevant to the topic at hand. 

[Bartybum]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

We'll when you imagine the scenario are you playing with people or are you playing around people? In the situation of with I assume theres a common goal so if theres a long mission the collective group would like it completed, in the latter version I don't know why you're on a multiplayer server.

Why is it up to you how others play multiplayer? Both play styles are equally valid. One person does a mission here, one does a mission elsewhere. Space agencies can have multiple missions at once.

I’m on a multiplayer server because I wanna build stuff that others can then later interact with. And likewise, I wanna interact with their stuff.

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I dont see how any multiplayer mechanic changes a connection drop, nor how it's relevant to the topic at hand.

It’s absolutely relevant, because if my connection drops at the wrong moment I’ve lost my position in the queue and have to go do something else until my next transfer window/whatever, which could take god knows how much time if I have to wait for other players because they’re doing stuff in that window. That’s not fun.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bartybum

[mcwaffles2003]

34 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Why is it up to you how others play multiplayer?

Umm... chill? I wasn't dictating how people play multiplayer, but I was pointing out the absurdity of playing in a multiplayer server in the fashion of everyone playing a separate single player campaign in a single server and saying that I don't understand that point of view...

 Also, we're discussing how multiplayer timewarping is going to work. Since you have a different opinion should I get mad and accuse you of dictating how I should play? No, because that's unproductive...

34 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Both play styles are equally valid. One person does a mission here, one does a mission elsewhere. Space agencies can have multiple missions at once.

Agreed, hence my:

5 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If everyone's locked in the same time and you're on a 5 year long mission while others are on hours long missions why not come back to your mission and do something else in the meantime? 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I’m on a multiplayer server because I wanna build stuff that others can then later interact with. And likewise, I wanna interact with their stuff.

Thank you for clearing that up. But you do recognize the issue razzark brings up with that, correct?

15 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?

This is a  problem, care to address how it is mitigated?

 

34 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

It’s absolutely relevant, because if my connection drops at the wrong moment I’ve lost my position in the queue and have to go do something else until my next transfer window/whatever, which could take god knows how much time if I have to wait for other players because they’re doing stuff in that window. That’s not fun.

What queue? We are obviously not on the same wavelength. Personally, I figure timewarp should go as fast as the slowest persons timewarp and in a server hopefully everyone can be respectful with that, if not, kick'em. But as for connections dropping and what happens when they do? Well that depends on if you're running the server I suppose. If you are, everyone loses connection and has to rejoin at the last save when it reboots. If you're not the host, the game will go on without you until you return, sorry, crap happens. If you can find another way for this to work please do tell.

Just curious, when you are imagining multiplayer in this game, how many players do you envision being on a sever simultaneously at max?

I assume 4 (we have seen 4 launchpads at the new KSC), maybe 8 as that is a lot of separate physics scenarios for a computer to hold and keep track of.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Bartybum]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Umm... chill? I wasn't dictating how people play multiplayer, but I was pointing out the absurdity of playing in a multiplayer server in the fashion of everyone playing a separate single player campaign in a single server and saying that I don't understand that point of view...

 Also, we're discussing how multiplayer timewarping is going to work. Since you have a different opinion should I get mad and accuse you of dictating how I should play? No, because that's unproductive...

My apologies if that came off as not chill, not my intent. That being said, I do find your attitude towards the gameplay style I described earlier to sound a bit like gatekeeping.

Personally I don't think it's absurd to play how I'd like to play. After all, it's the same general play style as in any other multiplayer sandbox game. People go off and do their own things free of restrictions, but can interact together if they wish.

 

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Agreed, hence my:

If everyone's locked in the same time and you're on a 5 year long mission while others are on hours long missions why not come back to your mission and do something else in the meantime?

I answered that:

11 hours ago, Bartybum said:

Because I don’t want to wait days or even weeks in the real world before I have a chance to continue what I was doing. What if I don’t have time to play KSP every day? What happens if my connection drops out when it’s my turn? Does the whole server pause, or do I suddenly have to wait another few weeks in real life before I have another chance to do my thing?

If I have to wait months in real life to do even basic interplanetary stuff (not even mentioning interstellar voyages) then what’s the point?

I have preferences on what I'd like to do, and I don't want to have to be constantly waiting to do them. Do I have to keep sending missions out? I don't want to have to wait months in real life to finish them because others keep having more urgent missions to do. At some point I'd like to finish my missions.

 

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thank you for clearing that up. But you do recognize the issue razzark brings up with that, correct?

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?

If B docks to the station on day 1, then the paradox only occurs when B tries to sync with A after B has docked.

One solution could be to prompt B that to sync forwards with A would require B's station to be replaced by A's, effectively undoing B's work.

Admittedly, this would require some measure of player coordination to avoid losing ships due to the game trying to avoid paradoxes. I imagine the scenario to look like this:

• A and B each launch a ship into orbit (assuming the station has more than one docking port)
  Both craft are at time T=0
• A timewarps forward 5 days
  A is at T=5, B is at T=0
• A informs B that they will be docking to the station; B cooperates and agrees to wait until A's save is ready to be synced with (only logical; you want to make sure you set out at the correct time)
• A docks (assume it takes one day to dock)
  A is at T=6, B is at T=0 (but can be anywhere between the two)
• B syncs with A, and then A goes and does something else. The station in B's save now has A's ship docked to it
  A is at T=6, B is at T=6
• B docks
  A is at T=6+x (x is whatever arbitrary time has passed while A has been doing other stuff), B is at T=7 (assuming it also takes B one day to dock)
• If B warps ahead of A, then A can sync to B to update the station and A's save. Otherwise, A is prompted by B to update A's version of the station (sort of a reverse sync) to reflect what the new station should be (with both ships attached), as well as where it should be. Both players' saves now have the station with both ships docked, both in the correct position in each player's respective timeline

If that's programmable, then personally I don't think it'd be too difficult to get the hang of, especially if taught properly in a tutorial with examples. I think it follows a fairly logical train of thought.

 

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What queue? We are obviously not on the same wavelength. Personally, I figure timewarp should go as fast as the slowest persons timewarp and in a server hopefully everyone can be respectful with that, if not, kick'em. But as for connections dropping and what happens when they do? Well that depends on if you're running the server I suppose. If you are, everyone loses connection and has to rejoin at the last save when it reboots. If you're not the host, the game will go on without you until you return, sorry, crap happens. If you can find another way for this to work please do tell.

The timewarp queue is the priority list that I was talking about earlier, the one that would evolve out of transfer windows:

11 hours ago, Bartybum said:

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.

 

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Just curious, when you are imagining multiplayer in this game, how many players do you envision being on a sever simultaneously at max?

At max I'd imagine no more than six to eight players.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bartybum

[mcwaffles2003]

 

17 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

 

  6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thank you for clearing that up. But you do recognize the issue razzark brings up with that, correct?

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?

If B docks to the station on day 1, then the paradox only occurs when B tries to sync with A after B has docked.

One solution could be to prompt B that to sync forwards with A would require B's station to be replaced by A's, effectively undoing B's work. If A decides to backwards sync, then A's work would need to be undone.

Admittedly, this would require some measure of player coordination to avoid losing ships due to the game trying to avoid paradoxes. I imagine the scenario to look like this:

• A and B each launch a ship into orbit (assuming the station has more than one docking port)
  Both craft are at time T=0
• A timewarps forward 5 days
  A is at T=5, B is at T=0
• A informs B that they will be docking to the station; B cooperates and agrees to wait until A's save is ready to be synced with (only logical, you want to make sure you set out at the correct time)
• A docks (assume it takes one day to dock)
  A is at T=6, B is at T=0 (but can be anywhere between the two)
• B syncs with A, and then A goes and does something else. The station in B's save now has A's ship docked to it
  A is at T=6, B is at T=6
• B docks
  A is at T=6+x (x is whatever arbitrary time has passed while A has been doing other stuff), B is at T=7 (assuming it also takes B one day to dock)
• If B warps ahead of A, then A can sync to B to update the station and A's save. Otherwise, A is prompted by B to update A's version of the station (sort of a reverse sync) to reflect what the new station should be (with both ships attached), as well as where it should be. Both players' saves now have the station with both ships docked, both in the correct position in each player's respective timeline

If that's programmable, then personally I don't think it'd be too difficult to get the hang of, especially if taught properly in a tutorial with examples. I think it follows a fairly logical train of thought.

Softly, this still doesn't answer the 

Quote

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?

Will they no longer be allowed to sync as their worlds have so vastly diverged? does the station come back?

If it does come back what if the station is just moved on day 3? Do 2 stations appear now after the merge or has A been magically transported? 

 

What if A and B are unsynced and each researches a different tech? do they get both techs when they sync? Are the science points in the future used by people in the past? Does money function the same way?

There are enough causal loops I can come up with here that the spiffing brit himself would dedicate his channel to solely KSP 2 content onward

I say all this and I see the conveniences of the dark multiplayer method easing many of the issues you bring up, just...

 

I just dont see

17 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

some measure of player coordination to avoid losing ships due to the game trying to avoid paradoxes.

happening. Players wouldnt be able to touch other players craft or any point of contact between the 2 along a 4D space... Way too hard to keep track of. If the space station on day 5 with player A is only nudged then there can become a wildly different set of scenarios. You could make it so no one could interact with that station but at that point your making the game a zero touching game and that just seems so much more complicated.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Bej Kerman]

12 hours ago, Bartybum said:

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.

Exactly. At this point, it feels like all these people who want everyone to be stuck to the same timeline either aren't being serious, or have never even touched the game. And those whining about causality just don't have a clue about anything.

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Thank you for clearing that up. But you do recognize the issue razzark brings up with that, correct?

Razzark doesn't have a clue. They're whining about problems that don't even exist in primitive KSP 1 multiplayer mods.

15 hours ago, razark said:

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. 

Because it's going to crash into the terrain as soon as your 5 other mates vote to warp! Try landing a lander at 100,000x warp, go try it now. Do it. What, you don't think you can land something that's going that fast? Point made. Not to mention KSP 2 could have life support, and life support will be limited if it's added or there's no point. I don't know how you could support such a stupid, silly, dim-witted decision as a vote system in a game where everyone has to be able to do things at their own speeds. And don't being up causality again because it's a problem that doesn't exist.

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, Bej Kerman said:

Razzark doesn't have a clue. They're whining about problems that don't even exist in primitive KSP 1 multiplayer mods.

You in no way answered any of my concerns but have simply asserted they are not concerns. Please, convince me they aren't.

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

 

 

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?

What if A and B are unsynced and each researches a different tech? do they get both techs when they sync? Are the science points in the future used by people in the past? Does money function the same way?

There are enough causal loops I can come up with here that the spiffing brit himself would dedicate his channel to solely KSP 2 content onward

 

[DStaal]

27 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What if A and B are unsynced and each researches a different tech? do they get both techs when they sync? Are the science points in the future used by people in the past? Does money function the same way?

Honestly, those are easy: The different players are running different agencies.  Techs/money for one agency are independent from each other.

[mcwaffles2003]

12 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Honestly, those are easy: The different players are running different agencies.  Techs/money for one agency are independent from each other.

you answered the 2nd but not the 1st

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?

 

Will they no longer be allowed to sync as their worlds have so vastly diverged? does the station come back?

If it does come back what if the station is just moved on day 3? Do 2 stations appear now after the merge or has A been magically transported? 

[razark]

Jumping back into this thread for two things:

A. Clarification on timewarp voting: It's not a "most votes wins" scenario.  It's a "lowest requested timewarp wins", as @mcwaffles2003 stated earlier.  There's no way for other players to force one player to a higher timewarp setting.

B. Please, do you really need to resort to personal insults?

[DStaal]

I didn't quote that one because I wasn't attempting to answer it.   

 

Honestly, most of this discussion really needs to have some basic questions about what type of multiplayer you're supporting, and what the goal of multiplayer is answered first.  Time-warp for a multi-planet start with interactions would be very different than time warp for mission-control-and-remote-kerbals.  Both are multiplayer.  Knowing what the goal of multiplayer is - what it's trying to enable, what's it's trying to encourage, how you're supposed to be interacting with the other players, etc. will likely tell you how time warp needs to work.

[mcwaffles2003]

9 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Honestly, most of this discussion really needs to have some basic questions about what type of multiplayer you're supporting, and what the goal of multiplayer is answered first. 

Agreed, and perhaps this is where a lot of the disagreement stems. I think some of us have different visions of what we hope to get out of multiplayer. There's a side where everyone is in the same reference frame constantly and ship-ship interaction is high vs a different reference frame where contact is minimized.

 

In my view the object of multiplayer is to enhance interaction, hence my preference for same reference frame. I see it's faults but they come as inconveniences;  where as with re-syncing de-synced reference frames I just see a lot of contradictions popping up that can be game breaking, meaning to avoid these contradictions contact between ships will be very complicated.

 

One thing i would like to do is enjoy a space war, I realize the base game is not intended for this, but I still hope for it. Something akin to this:

Spoiler

 

In that series they have to trade the save back and fourth and compete indirectly with AI. It would be fun to experience something like this but directly. 

I would also like to run a co-op campaign at some point as well.

Edited February 25, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Bartybum]

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Softly, this still doesn't answer the

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?

Mmm, no it defs doesn't, does it?

I suppose multiplayer could be based off the assumption that both players work cooperatively (i.e. you wouldn't play KSP with someone you don't like), and then it leaves it up to the players to decide whose version of the station will persist. This way, if B destroyed the station, and then synced with A, the game could prompt both to decide whose instance is correct.

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If it does come back what if the station is just moved on day 3? Do 2 stations appear now after the merge or has A been magically transported?

The same would apply here. Both users must work together to decide whose station instance to keep.

That being said, this whole scenario seems like one based of a neutral/hostile relationship between players. It can be avoided if they just coordinate.

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

What if A and B are unsynced and each researches a different tech? do they get both techs when they sync? Are the science points in the future used by people in the past? Does money function the same way?

Perhaps again, the tech that's unlocked will be determined by whose instance is considered correct. That way if you used a ship to fulfill a contract/unlock tech and that ship gets wiped, then so would the tech/money. Tbh I hadn't thought much about money and stuff though - I've mainly been focused on sandbox gameplay. For a co-op career, I do think forced timewarp would be quite cool, but I wouldn't wanna play that with more than 3-4 players (which is plenty), because of transfer windows.

11 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I just dont see *snip* happening

I do, people can learn things pretty quickly. To interact with a player, you'd simply have to be synced to them. In any case, I would also see the option of locking timewarp to prevent desync being implemented when players wanna interact, or even globally so that there's no desync at all.

[mcwaffles2003]

14 hours ago, Bartybum said:

That being said, this whole scenario seems like one based of a neutral/hostile relationship between players. It can be avoided if they just coordinate.

It's not though, all it requires is the tiniest poke (any physical interaction) to put the space station in a different location. I think anyone who has parked a ship by a station with 0.0 m/s of difference in velocity and then warped ahead 3 days knows what I mean here. 

If the game is based on this kind of warp mechanic then I believe it will be a very delicate game.

[Guest]

I'm gonna make an assumption, KSP is not supposed to be a war game, (almost) everybody at least accept the fact that mods and abstraction are needed to implement warfare into the game, so nobody will care if a system to solve paradoxes makes war impossible.

That said all problems with synchronisation can be solved by a single owner permission system, every craft has a single owner and his decisions are absolute for that craft, nobody can interact with that craft without direct permission from the owner.

Docking ports can be also managed with a request system, someone has to ask permission to use a docking port to the owner of the craft and that docking port is occupied in all timeframes untill the owner decides differently or the user frees it.

When a craft is docked the player who asked permission basically grants ownership of it for the time is docked to the other player's craft.

 

I'm thinking this in a scenario in which every player (for a total of no more of 10, max 20 but I see it already as a stretch) is an indipendent but cooperative (as in "not at war", like different companies working in the same market) different entity and in which every player agrees to be more or less in the same time frame (same year? Same decade?) but independent in his missions. 

[mcwaffles2003]

43 minutes ago, Master39 said:

I'm gonna make an assumption, KSP is not supposed to be a war game, (almost) everybody at least accept the fact that mods and abstraction are needed to implement warfare into the game, so nobody will care if a system to solve paradoxes makes war impossible.

Agreed

43 minutes ago, Master39 said:

That said all problems with synchronisation can be solved by a single owner permission system, every craft has a single owner and his decisions are absolute for that craft, nobody can interact with that craft without direct permission from the owner.

Docking ports can be also managed with a request system, someone has to ask permission to use a docking port to the owner of the craft and that docking port is occupied in all timeframes untill the owner decides differently or the user frees it.

When a craft is docked the player who asked permission basically grants ownership of it for the time is docked to the other player's craft.

So no 2 people can dock at the same station using different docking ports or to one another? I just feel this ends up as very convoluted and reduces p2p interaction which, in my opinion, is the point of having multiplayer.

Is the run at minimum voted timewarp really that unappealing? Is it worth all this added abstraction? Just seems a lot simpler and less bug prone to me

Edited February 26, 2020 by mcwaffles2003

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So no 2 people can dock at the same station using different docking ports or to one another? I just feel this ends up as very convoluted and reduces p2p interaction which, in my opinion, is the point of having multiplayer.

No, let's say you're the owner of the "Minmus Gateway Station" which has 3 docking ports.

Every docking port has it's own "token", another player can request from you a token to dock, then nobody else can dock to that docking port until that player gives you that token back.

When a ship is docked the owner of the station has absolute control on it and his timeframe is assumed to be the right one automatically.

 But this is something I came up with in 5 minutes while reading the other responses and without having ever played any of the multiplayer mods, I'm sure that a full studio of actual game developers can think something better in a few months of work.

11 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Is the run at minimum voted timewarp really that unappealing? Is it worth all this added abstraction? Just seems a lot simpler and less bug prone to me

This is not simpler, it's just easier to develop because it offloads all the organisation and the abstraction onto the player.

For me and my friends would make the multiplayer DOA, we don't want to make a single mission at a time with back seat spectators nor waiting for each other constantly, we just want to play our own space programs like in single player but while being able to interact with each other.

That doesn't mean that we will play at 50 years of time warp difference, we'll just sync up every other session or so, to enable everybody to play at his own pace. 

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Is the run at minimum voted timewarp really that unappealing?

Caveat: I won't use any multiplayer system as I won't play multiplayer at all.

If you expect players will want to play multiplayer but not actually do things together (as you seem to or all these paradoxes you say will happen wouldn't happen if everybody was working together) then a warp voting system basically eliminates interplanetary missions. The ONLY way to do an interplanetary mission with warp restrictions is to do it together. If not, you're going to take weeks if not months of real life time to reach your destination. Unless you wait until everybody else goes to bed and warp without them. And you're the server owner.

 

[mcwaffles2003]

7 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Caveat: I won't use any multiplayer system as I won't play multiplayer at all.

If you expect players will want to play multiplayer but not actually do things together (as you seem to or all these paradoxes you say will happen wouldn't happen if everybody was working together) then a warp voting system basically eliminates interplanetary missions. The ONLY way to do an interplanetary mission with warp restrictions is to do it together. If not, you're going to take weeks if not months of real life time to reach your destination. Unless you wait until everybody else goes to bed and warp without them. And you're the server owner.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Master39 said:

No, let's say you're the owner of the "Minmus Gateway Station" which has 3 docking ports.

Every docking port has it's own "token", another player can request from you a token to dock, then nobody else can dock to that docking port until that player gives you that token back.

When a ship is docked the owner of the station has absolute control on it and his timeframe is assumed to be the right one automatically.

 But this is something I came up with in 5 minutes while reading the other responses and without having ever played any of the multiplayer mods, I'm sure that a full studio of actual game developers can think something better in a few months of work.

This is not simpler, it's just easier to develop because it offloads all the organisation and the abstraction onto the player.

For me and my friends would make the multiplayer DOA, we don't want to make a single mission at a time with back seat spectators nor waiting for each other constantly, we just want to play our own space programs like in single player but while being able to interact with each other.

That doesn't mean that we will play at 50 years of time warp difference, we'll just sync up every other session or so, to enable everybody to play at his own pace. 

 

Just gunna say.. Dark multiplayer has been out since 2014 and there are no campaign playthroughs to be found. So all the talk about using a DMP type system to make running a coop campaign work... it hasn't produced 1 uploaded playthrough in the past 5-6 years so far. So maybe campaigns just aren't what multiplayer is to be intended for?

[Guest]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

So maybe campaigns just aren't what multiplayer is to be intended for?

If it's not to set up a server and make a full campaign together then it's not even multiplayer, just LAN co-op, something barely more relevant than sharing screenshots on telegram.

[Superfluous J]

Just now, mcwaffles2003 said:

So maybe campaigns just aren't what multiplayer is to be intended for?

Like I said, no clue.

Maybe DMP isn't popular because after people try multiplayer they realize how inherently bad an idea it is.

Maybe they never put multiplayer in stock KSP for the same reason.

Only time (and KSP2 actually having multiplayer) will tell.

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Maybe DMP isn't popular because after people try multiplayer they realize how inherently bad an idea it is.

If that is the case, maybe it is, then why would we want to intentionally repeat the way it was constructed?

 

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

If it's not to set up a server and make a full campaign together then it's not even multiplayer, just LAN co-op, something barely more relevant than sharing screenshots on telegram.

Explain?

1. How are LAN co-ops not multiplayer? I thought multiplayer was more than 1 player in the same game and that's it
2. Campaign isn't the only mode for KSP
3. Multiple people interacting with vessels is a bit more than:

   Quote

   sharing screenshots on telegram

 

Look, I'm just saying the multiple stacked reference frames version of multiplayer has existed for 5-6 years and in those years I have found 0 footage of anyone doing the things that are prevented by having limited timewarping. Seriously, if anyone can find footage of multiple people in DMP carrying out a campaign I will back off as you will have shown proof that this works as intended. But until then I argue that it apparently hasn't solved the problem at hand. All I see so far is a million ways that if a campaign was actually attempted to be conducted in this manner then a whole lot of bugs derived from the most basic of B grade time travel movies would come up and any system put in place to reconcile this seems so convoluted it would make playing a chore. These problems wouldn't solely arise from griefing but simply just playing and not being 100% aware of all the actions of fellow players. This would make the game require a LOT of coordination.

I hope I'm wrong if this is the path MP goes, genuinely, but it seems to me far simpler to just have everyone in the same reference frame. Maybe we wont launch to other planets or stars while others are sticking around the moon, but we could definitely have a fair bit of fun on Kerbin together, and there is plenty to be had there. If everyone went off to the same planet together that would work too.

I hope multiplayer, however it ends up being executed, does so successfully. Because with it, and the mod community together, I hope some new ways to play the game emerge instead of just repeating the same one we have been playing solo. I saw DOTA emerge from Warcraft 3, and though it's not my cup of tea it definitely was a new game, vastly different from the one the original intended and gave rise to a now thriving community of its own. I can only imagine what kind of games could emerge with the raw open-endedness of KSP, and if the multiplayer is good it is where I intend to spend the lions share of my time playing the game.

[Superfluous J]

4 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

If that is the case, maybe it is, then why would we want to intentionally repeat the way it was constructed?

Because it's the best way to implement an inherently bad idea?

Frankly I hope they do time warp voting so when nobody likes that way either I'll have more proof that no one really wants to play KSP multiplayer, they just think they do.

[mcwaffles2003]

Just now, 5thHorseman said:

Because it's the best way to implement an inherently bad idea?

Frankly I hope they do time warp voting so when nobody likes that way either I'll have more proof that no one really wants to play KSP multiplayer, they just think they do.

I feel like you only read my direct response to you and not the rest of my post...

If you're arguing multiplayer is an inherently bad idea and you have no intention on using it, then why are you even bothering to argue this?