KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[OHara]

It takes some effort, but not any extreme effort, to install Luna Multiplayer and launch two copies of KSP to see how LMP handles the questions raised.   
(I need to run each KSP instance in its own small window, but that is not too bad.)

1. Time Warp: Anyone can time-warp at will.  If any player is ahead of you in Kerbin time, LMP gives a button to time-warp to catch up.  This facilitates an agreed mutual time-warp, but does not enforce it.  Each player can see if the others are ahead or behind him, and by how much time.

While players are at different Kerbin-times, craft in the past can push craft in the future out of the way (and maybe cause damage-- I'll have to check).  Each player sees others' craft, even if the others are in the Kerbin past, at their latest position, or their latest orbital trajectory extrapolated forward by KSP's usual orbital mechanics.

Pausing the game is prevented by LMP (but it seems to me that their re-synchronization concept could be made to work with pausing at will).

2. Reverting: Reverting a flight recovers the craft (wherever it is) and recreates it as it was in either VAB or launchpad.

The server keeps an unpacked version of the contents of an *.sfs file called the shared 'Universe'.   Each player's game saves a persistent.sfs file as usual, that contains all the craft and Kerbals in the Universe.  Each player can quicksave, but not quickload.

To recover from disaster, everyone disconnects, any player who has a desired quicksave converts it using LMP to a Universe and puts that on the computer running the server, then someone restarts the server and everyone reconnects.  

3. Communication: Simple text chat

Craft-files in the VAB/SPH can be shared through the server

Any player can switch to any craft or Kerbal, but if another player is already controlling that craft, the new player is 'spectator' with controls disabled.   
(There are still bugs in LMP beta.  When two players dock their craft, currently sometimes LMP Server disconnects one player, rather than make him a spectator.)

4. Mods: Craft using mod parts are invisible to any players lacking that mod.  

The server stores a list of all parts allowed/required/forbidden (initially, all stock parts allowed) and tells players at login if there are conflicts.

5. Long-Term Motivation (for players to continue the multiplayer aspect of the game): Keeping a public server populated with players is not something the small LMP community tries to do.  The usual method is to arrange with friends to play together, and one of them runs the server.  At the moment there are 5 LMP servers with players on them; all but one are passworded.

Edited April 11, 2021 by OHara
correction: LunaMultiplayer often correctly handles craft-control upon docking

[mattinoz]

On 4/10/2021 at 9:37 AM, OHara said:

It takes some effort, but not any extreme effort, to install Luna Multiplayer and launch two copies of KSP to see how LMP handles the questions raised.   
(I need to run each KSP instance in its own small window, but that is not too bad.)

1. Time Warp: Anyone can time-warp at will.  If any player is ahead of you in Kerbin time, LMP gives a button to time-warp to catch up.  This facilitates an agreed mutual time-warp, but does not enforce it.  Each player can see if the others are ahead or behind him, and by how much time.

While players are at different Kerbin-times, craft in the past can push craft in the future out of the way (and maybe cause damage-- I'll have to check).  Each player sees others' craft, even if the others are in the Kerbin past, at their latest position, or their latest orbital trajectory extrapolated forward by KSP's usual orbital mechanics.

Pausing the game is prevented by LMP (but it seems to me that their re-synchronization concept could be made to work with pausing at will).

2. Reverting: Reverting a flight recovers the craft (wherever it is) and recreates it as it was in either VAB or launchpad.

The server keeps an unpacked version of the contents of an *.sfs file called the shared 'Universe'.   Each player's game saves a persistent.sfs file as usual, that contains all the craft and Kerbals in the Universe.  Each player can quicksave, but not quickload.

To recover from disaster, everyone disconnects, any player who has a desired quicksave converts it using LMP to a Universe and puts that on the computer running the server, then someone restarts the server and everyone reconnects.  

3. Communication: Simple text chat

Craft-files in the VAB/SPH can be shared through the server

Any player can switch to any craft or Kerbal, but if another player is already controlling that craft, the new player is 'spectator' with controls disabled.   
(There are still bugs in LMP beta.  When two players dock their craft, currently sometimes LMP Server disconnects one player, rather than make him a spectator.)

4. Mods: Craft using mod parts are invisible to any players lacking that mod.  

The server stores a list of all parts allowed/required/forbidden (initially, all stock parts allowed) and tells players at login if there are conflicts.

5. Long-Term Motivation (for players to continue the multiplayer aspect of the game): Keeping a public server populated with players is not something the small LMP community tries to do.  The usual method is to arrange with friends to play together, and one of them runs the server.  At the moment there are 5 LMP servers with players on them; all but one are passworded.

KSP2 doesn't need to get everything right for everyone, it can let mods adapt play styles in the game.  This seems to me to be a good summary of what they should get right give there is a solid example and they've been building from day one to include it. 

Would love to see if KSP2 for single-player and multiplayer might handle mods. If there are per-save mod set-ups would be great if there was mod syncing between players. 

 

[Tw1]

TBH, I've imagined it working with a system, where time, timewarp, and so on is local to the player.  This would lead to weird effects from the view of a non warping player as another player's vessel would appear to take a path through the solar system which isn't physically possible, or be able to warp to catch up to another player's orbiting ship.

But it eliminates all sorts of other issues. No need to worry about what happened before what, as all players operate on real life time, not in game time. Plus, no risk of one player's time warp messing up another's plans.

When a player is not online, time based things  simply don't happen to them. Time has long been an infinite resource in KSP anyway.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Tw1

[Linky]

"Due to the continued research by KSP's dedicated quantum physics department, we are excited to announce that we have discovered parallel universes! These alternate realities are more or less the same as ours. A recent breakthrough allows us to be transported through the 5th dimension to 'sync' up with these alternate dimensions to team up with the Kerbals that live nearly on top of us!"

 

This won't end up happening in the game (although it seems none of us quite have an idea that would fill every dependency), but my thought process is that each player has its own universe, with a new device that allows you to sync up with other realities when necessary to work together. You do your part, then click "SYNC", where your progress appears everywhere. Perhaps a "main" reality? Still, there are a tremendous number of holes in this idea.

Edited June 23, 2022 by Linky
Grammatical fix

[PlutoISaPlanet]

4 minutes ago, Linky said:

"Due to the continued research by KSP's dedicated quantum physics department, we are excited to announce that we have discovered parallel universes! These alternate realities are more or less the same as ours. A recent breakthrough allows us to be transported through the 5th dimension to 'sync' up with these alternate dimensions to team up with the Kerbals that live nearly on top of us!"

 

This won't end up happening in the game (although it seems none of us quite have an idea that would fill every dependency), but my thought process is that each player has its own universe, with a new device that allows you to sync up with other realities when necessary to work together. You do your part, then click "SYNC", where your progress appears everywhere. Perhaps a "main" reality? Still, there are  still a tremendous amount of holes in this idea.

Most of my conceptualizations are very similar. I always compare it to Forza Horizons.

[determinationmaster]

On 4/20/2021 at 12:19 PM, PlutoISaPlanet said:

Most of my conceptualizations are very similar. I always compare it to Forza Horizons.

go on?

[lokis63573]

Я хочу видеть систему, как в MudRunner, minecraft (coop).
Где можно спокойно сосуществовать рядом друг с другом (модами конечно)просто с разных стартовых площадок, делать одну общую станцию, делиться топливом и так далее.устраивать условные гонки к объекту .как в песочнице, так и в режиме миссии или науки.но главное, что можно делать сейвы !

Quote

I want to see the system like in MudRunner, minecraft (coop).
Where you can safely coexist next to each other (mods, of course) just from different launch sites, make one common station, share fuel and so on. Arrange conditional races to the object. Both in the sandbox and in mission or science mode. But most importantly, what saves can be done!

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Vanamonde
Please post in English when not using the International subforums.

[Hadur III]

What i really want is 2+ players in the same Agency.

Sometimes i play with a friend of mine, he likes to build different types of rockets, and i like to operate. I often asked him to build the rockets, giving him all the specs i need, then he built it, sent the file to me and watched me doing the tests and doing my missions using it. It was very fun.

 

We wondered if in KSP2 we could have the same agency, and while i operate in missions, he builds new rockets for new missions. Also we have another friend who will enjoy very much to farm science and controll kerbals on land missions. It would be amazing doing it all together in the same agency, and eventually at the same time.

 

We also thought about being on different agencies but we could trade rocket projects, science, techs, etc... using money or reputation as currency.

[determinationmaster]

On 6/9/2021 at 12:32 AM, Hadur III said:

What i really want is 2+ players in the same Agency.

Sometimes i play with a friend of mine, he likes to build different types of rockets, and i like to operate. I often asked him to build the rockets, giving him all the specs i need, then he built it, sent the file to me and watched me doing the tests and doing my missions using it. It was very fun.

 

We wondered if in KSP2 we could have the same agency, and while i operate in missions, he builds new rockets for new missions. Also we have another friend who will enjoy very much to farm science and controll kerbals on land missions. It would be amazing doing it all together in the same agency, and eventually at the same time.

 

We also thought about being on different agencies but we could trade rocket projects, science, techs, etc... using money or reputation as currency.

Ok, this is a great idea. i hope the devs see this. everyone, like Hadur's post!

[cubinator]

It just occurred to me that we are going to see what realistic space battles might be like, simply through emergent behavior. As people decide how they want to play we will find out what works and what doesn't.

[Dientus]

 

The gravity of that statement just hit me. You are right. No matter the game, there will always be a group that just wants to spar and fight. It's nature.

 

Now I am anxious to see what may happen since the physics of battle will include orbits and preplanning to land a missile correctly. Not to mention that as seen with BDArmory it is a near guarantee there will be some kind mod introducing practical weaponry systems (hopefully realistic and not fantasy sci fi in my opinion)

[Neoks]

Ksp 2 graphis looks gorgeous but i have an question to ask  : do i need an RTX to render it? and a good CPU? 

[TLTay]

44 minutes ago, Neoks said:

Ksp 2 graphis looks gorgeous but i have an question to ask  : do i need an RTX to render it? and a good CPU? 

Nobody knows the specs for sure yet. Good news is that Nate said in a recent interview that they are putting in a lot of effort to get it to run well on the broadest range of systems possible.

[Missingno200]

I have RISEN FROM MY GRAVE after multiple computer changes, to share my thoughts. I haven't read the full thread yet, so I apologize if it's a pointless post.

Personally, I think it'll be like the OpenTTD system. Maybe a server browser for those that want public servers, but otherwise, you have private servers hosted by whoever wants to play. Then, you get to pick your team. Either you can play on your own separate team(boot everyone else who joins out or lock it, who knows?), or you can help with another team, with pooled resources and everything.
This is of course just my thoughts, but judging by the relatively recent colony images, it looks like this might actually be the case. Or I'm totally wrong, who knows?

Edited June 30, 2021 by Missingno200
Forget my second sentence.

[Maverick040]

Hey! I am sorry if this is repetitive and long. I was pondering about a solution for the time-warp functionality of a multiplayer gameplay. Recently, inspired by the series "Loki", I thought it could be implemented as a parallel timeline "situation".  This could also introduce a new mode in co-op multiplayer as a "Mission Director".

This could work as follows:

• Player asks for permission from the "host"/"Mission Director" for time-warp.
• Once approved, this player is branched into a parallel time-line, this also triggers a "save game" event for backup.
• The splitting and merging of time-lines can be controlled by the "Mission Director"
• Once the timeline splits, the player has independent control of his time-warp, the updates will be saved locally on their PC. 
• Any subsequent "timeline split" events triggered by other players will trigger their own independent timelines while again updating the common save file.
• Once the player is satisfied with the time warp, they could request the "Mission Director" for merging their timeline into the main timeline. 
• This could be done by updating the common save file by using the player's local save file made during the timeline split duration.

Regarding what the other players would "see" when a player has branched out into an independent timeline:

• The "independent" player craft/asset will be updated in the "common game" only when the player performs a trajectory/ attitude change maneuver. Until then, the "branched timeline" does not trigger a synchronization of the save files.
• The timestamp and the maneuver info will be updated on the common game. This will be "executed" in the common game at the timestamp.
• The "Mission Director" can visualize these branched timelines and the "synchronization nodes" in the timelines. They can choose to authorize it or not. This will determine if the actions in the split timeline will affect the common timeline.
• This also means that a player in a branched timeline can revert to any point in the timeline which is ahead of the current time in the common timeline.

 

Disadvantages:

Actions in the branched timeline does not affect another branched timeline

Inter-Vessel Interactions b/w multiple players must happen in the common timeline

 

Advantages:

A new "role" to enjoy KSP: "Mission Director", potentially, server game can be made into several roles: Craft Builder, Engineer, Pilot, Astronaut, Scientist etc.

Revert possible: to some extent

Players can be less worried about their actions killing the entire game: independent timeline + Sync. Node authorization

 

P.S:  To make "Mission Director" more busy, they could add roles like remote control. Once a player lands a ship and delivers a cargo, the cargo "control" is patched over to the "Mission Director" to assemble/deploy it. This will free up the player to do his tasks rather than change vessels and do it himself. This could be helpful in base building scenarios where you can have re-supply pilots taking care of flying/driving, the mission director does the base management eg. life-support/ power etc. for the base.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Maverick040
Forgot to add a part

[mcwaffles2003]

Is it possible that multiplayer doesn't focus on everyone getting out to other planets but instead focuses on interacting with other people?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Is it possible that multiplayer doesn't focus on everyone getting out to other planets but instead focuses on interacting with other people?

Define "interacting with other people".

I guess you want to try the new progression that seems to be the main focus of this game, right?

With all of its huge infrastructure requirements, multiple bases collecting resources and supply lines to move them between the mines and the factories.

If you can't manage different levels of timewarp at once and sync up the result you can't use the multiplayer for doing that.

I'm not looking forward to make a mun mission with my friend then close the session and then we both go back to our single player saves, I'm looking forward to replace single player with the multiplayer and have a single save in which 4 or 5 people play together each one with their own space program, like we do in Minecraft, Stellaris, Factorio (to an extent, immagine not being able to work on the smelters because a player is working with trains) and a dozen of other games.

 

Anything less than that and multuplayer is not even worth having, I can coach a friend or let him playing Collins while I land on the Mun by streaming my monitor, no need for multiplayer for that.

[mcwaffles2003]

35 minutes ago, Master39 said:

Define "interacting with other people".

Setting up a cart track and racing each other

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Setting up a cart track and racing each other

And then close the multiplayer and go back to SP if you want to play the actual game, right?

[Maverick040]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

Define "interacting with other people".

I guess you want to try the new progression that seems to be the main focus of this game, right?

With all of its huge infrastructure requirements, multiple bases collecting resources and supply lines to move them between the mines and the factories.

If you can't manage different levels of timewarp at once and sync up the result you can't use the multiplayer for doing that.

I'm not looking forward to make a mun mission with my friend then close the session and then we both go back to our single player saves, I'm looking forward to replace single player with the multiplayer and have a single save in which 4 or 5 people play together each one with their own space program, like we do in Minecraft, Stellaris, Factorio (to an extent, immagine not being able to work on the smelters because a player is working with trains) and a dozen of other games.

 

Anything less than that and multuplayer is not even worth having, I can coach a friend or let him playing Collins while I land on the Mun by streaming my monitor, no need for multiplayer for that.

Interacting with people could be collisions, docking, resource sharing, etc.

 

The method I proposed can sync multiple multiplayers.  The only limitation is that players can't interact with other player's "currently warping assets". 

To simplify, my idea is shown in the attached image:

[PlutoISaPlanet]

On 5/14/2021 at 2:41 PM, determinationmaster said:

go on?

Every player is in their own time bubble when timewarping, and cannot interact with other players vessel. When both are not in time warp, they can physically interact.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Maverick040 said:

Interacting with people could be collisions, docking, resource sharing, etc.

 

The method I proposed can sync multiple multiplayers.  The only limitation is that players can't interact with other player's "currently warping assets". 

To simplify, my idea is shown in the attached image:

In 19 pages there are at least 15 pages of different viable solutions. It's an easy thing to solve, it has been done multiple times by mods and there's no way they don't have the resources to solve this so called "problem" in less than a week of work, probably even just a 15 minutes meeting.

[Missingno200]

7 hours ago, Master39 said:

... probably even just a 15 minutes meeting.

Not to discredit or anything, but considering we HAVE been arguing for this over 19 pages of this thread, and despite having literally 3 of the 15 or so proposed solutions available in mods like LMP, I suspect that it wouldn't be solved in several days worth of internal discussion inside Intercept.

I'd set up a few LMP servers for everyone to test these features at their leisure, but I'm about to go on a trip so I can't host such a thing.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Missingno200
Trip.

[Beerasaurus]

I'm way more concerned about how they're going to handle things like Science and Kerbucks across multiplayer. I'm seriously torn whether I think you should absolutely be allowed to hop in to your buddy's game just as they're about to unlock an achievement and get it as well, or whether that fundamentally breaks the game.

If I could have leap-frogged certain objectives in KSP1 just by being Co-Op with my buddy when she beat them would have fundamentally, drastically changed how I played the game.

[Missingno200]

5 hours ago, Beerasaurus said:

I'm way more concerned about how they're going to handle things like Science and Kerbucks across multiplayer. I'm seriously torn whether I think you should absolutely be allowed to hop in to your buddy's game just as they're about to unlock an achievement and get it as well, or whether that fundamentally breaks the game.

If I could have leap-frogged certain objectives in KSP1 just by being Co-Op with my buddy when she beat them would have fundamentally, drastically changed how I played the game.

On mobile so I shall keep this short, but I suspect they'll take up my system to avoid this. Also, probably no achievements in general.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Missingno200
Fixed double post from bad connection.