KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[t_v]

I’ll start with this, before moving onto a reply:

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

What kind of multiplayer do you want? Go into some specifics please. @Redneck

we’ve had this discussion for about 30 pages on this thread, and unless the current line of discussion naturally makes it’s way there, let’s not turn it that way. 
 

6 hours ago, Redneck said:

So i see posts all the time regarding multiplayer and I wonder why they wont talk about multiplayer or even comment on it. Well as a field mechanic for a rental company I will get a call to goto a jobsite, lets say a welding machine for an example. Ill pull up at the jobsite. Put on the ol' hard hat open the door get out and walk up to the equipment and begin to look it over. Ill check the basics. oil, engine coolant, belts, fuel level, and just give it a overall look over looking for anything obvious such as fluids on the ground, melted wires, etc....anything that will indicate a equipment failure. Now keep in mind I've only been at this machine maybe 2 mins and here comes the customer walking up...." So what did you find wrong with it?" "I got a crew on the clock that needs this machine how long is it going to take to fix it?" At this point im thinking to myself "Is this guy for real? I literally just pulled up to the machine haven't even diagnosed it to know what's wrong with it and this guy expects me to predict the future!" So I proceed to explain to the customer I cant answer his question because I just got here and haven't had a chance to diagnose the problem. I don't know if any parts will need to be ordered or if its something simple I can repair quickly...again I don't know what's wrong with it yet! The customer depending on his mood may make a comment like "Well, I thought you were a mechanic? If you cant fix it perhaps we just need to get another machine out here!" Keep in mind we are at about the 5-10 min mark since I pulled up most of that time was spent answering stupid questions that could of been spent actually trying to diagnose the equipment in order to get answers to those previous questions. So with all that being said lets apply this same scenario to KSP2 and multiplayer where the devs are the mechanic and we are the customer. So we ask the devs questions about multiplayer such as will it do x,y,z? Or will it have x,y,z? We get no answers on anything and I think I know why. For one they are still working on it and trying to diagnose issues. Until those issues are worked out or diagnosed with a solution the question is not answerable. In short THEY dont even know.  And hell if i was a betting man i'm sure the thought is or was in the past considered if multiplayer is even doable at all.  But I think we have some other issues as well. The devs (mechanic) is not communicating that with us (customer) leaving us guessing. Why? Just be honest and state the facts and situation. Its not that hard or complicated unless YOU made it that way at which point you better double-down and put that fire out or the problems are going to start stacking up.  So did the devs bite off more than they can chew by announcing the multiplayer feature before the netcode was even devised? Thats like the mechanic telling the customer " ill have it fixed in a jiffy!" before he even knows whats wrong with it. He would in essence be BS'ing the customer correct?  So now 3 hours have gone by (3 years for KSP2) and the customer, who is now angry realizing the mechanic BS'd him, wants to know what's the holdup. You told me it would be fixed in a "jiffy".........well?  Then the mechanic just ignores him. How do you think that scenario ends? So this is where we are at now with KSP2 and multiplayer. No communication. Customer left guessing. Time delays. And we are still no closer to getting that machine running and dependable. Would a simple screenshot have gone a long way to appease the customer? "This is what I found wrong. This is what I need to do to get you up and running. And this is the approx time it will take to make that happen" Why is this concept so hard? A screenshot takes a whole....what? 30 secs to take it and shoot email off to the community manager or just post it yourself?  For a mechanic to tell the customer " It will be ready when its ready!"  Is the same as the devs telling us "KSP2 will have multiplayer" 3+ years prior and now with yet another delay.  The word "transparency " its a term or mantra we seem to use alot these days. So.....where is it? Or do we just use it when it's convenient? 

Your post has a great analogy that explains a lot of dev and customer behavior! For the topic of Multiplayer, here’s what I would add:

Multiplayer is a specific, challenging problem that is part of the full game. Say you are engineering this device and while testing it, you find that the problem is one computer chip. So, you announce to your boss “this chip is the problem, we’re working on this” and your boss has promised to the customers that the machine will have a computer chip in it. Customers want to know what model of chip, what software on it, what peripheral systems will be on it. However, back in the engineers’ lab, they are testing the voltages between sections of the chip and rebuilding it to see exactly where the problems lie. No promises can be made, because despite having a chip (multiplayer) the engineers (devs) still need to make alterations and don’t know if they will have to add more components or remove some, or disconnect and reconfigure some lines, etc. So if the boss promises a wifi-capable chip to the consumers and it turns out that wifi capability is causing lots of big problems and has to be removed later, the customers will be angry. So, the devs can have a working system but can’t show it off (which people will interpret as showing features that will be in the game) because they never know what they will have to remove down the line. 

[Redneck]

2 hours ago, t_v said:

I’ll start with this, before moving onto a reply:

we’ve had this discussion for about 30 pages on this thread, and unless the current line of discussion naturally makes it’s way there, let’s not turn it that way. 
 

Your post has a great analogy that explains a lot of dev and customer behavior! For the topic of Multiplayer, here’s what I would add:

Multiplayer is a specific, challenging problem that is part of the full game. Say you are engineering this device and while testing it, you find that the problem is one computer chip. So, you announce to your boss “this chip is the problem, we’re working on this” and your boss has promised to the customers that the machine will have a computer chip in it. Customers want to know what model of chip, what software on it, what peripheral systems will be on it. However, back in the engineers’ lab, they are testing the voltages between sections of the chip and rebuilding it to see exactly where the problems lie. No promises can be made, because despite having a chip (multiplayer) the engineers (devs) still need to make alterations and don’t know if they will have to add more components or remove some, or disconnect and reconfigure some lines, etc. So if the boss promises a wifi-capable chip to the consumers and it turns out that wifi capability is causing lots of big problems and has to be removed later, the customers will be angry. So, the devs can have a working system but can’t show it off (which people will interpret as showing features that will be in the game) because they never know what they will have to remove down the line. 

Yes i get that but the problem is they are not saying or communicating anything. What makes people more angry? Being ignored or simply saying its in the works and posting a screenshot. I mean say something. Wheres the transparency? 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Redneck said:

Yes i get that but the problem is they are not saying or communicating anything. What makes people more angry? Being ignored or simply saying its in the works and posting a screenshot. I mean say something. Wheres the transparency? 

It's not a matter of how angry people gets, it's a matter of how many users we're talking about. 

The developers saying nothing only make the usual 30-50 of us here on the forums talking, with the usual 5-10 naysayers making noise.

The Devs talking attract a bit more attention, Nate's announcement of the 2023 release has more than 200k views on YT.

 

On top of that multiplayer is a bit of a controversial topic for traditionally single player games, as you can see from the last 40 or so pages of this thread, it's not exactly the best argument to start marketing the game around, it's best for everyone if they keep it on the sideline with a "oh, there's multiplayer too for people that want it" attitude.

People are scared of things they know nothing about and, the KSP community? Let's just say we all seems to be very scared of everything that has to do with multiplayer.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I mean I think Redneck feels the way he feels and there's nothing wrong with him or anyone else expressing that. Multiplayer is what matters most to him, it doesn't matter as much to me, so I can see why the relative lack of information on that topic would have him feeling less optimistic. Thats all good. 

My only issue is when folks make a tactic of flooding a given section with repeated complaints because they think it creates some kind of leverage for them. I don't think thats what he's saying or doing. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[Vl3d]

8 hours ago, t_v said:

12 hours ago, Vl3d said:

What kind of multiplayer do you want? Go into some specifics please. @Redneck

we’ve had this discussion for about 30 pages on this thread, and unless the current line of discussion naturally makes it’s way there, let’s not turn it that way. 

I asked @Redneck a direct question about his preferences. We did not have 30 pages of his opinions.

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

the usual 5-10 naysayers making noise

I believe you have the wrong word: "naysayer - a person who criticizes, objects to, or opposes something". We don't oppose anything, we are just upset because of 2 months of silence about the game (except for the delay bad news).

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

My only issue is when folks make a tactic of flooding a given section with repeated complaints because they think it creates some kind of leverage for them.

We have not flooded anything, we are not working towards any leverage. We have stated clear arguments against the (lack of) communication strategy. That's all. I don't understand why some people choose to defend bad PR.

I don't like being forced to defend myself off-topic. Let's get along please.

[Pthigrivi]

50 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

We have not flooded anything, we are not working towards any leverage. We have stated clear arguments against the (lack of) communication strategy. That's all. I don't understand why some people choose to defend bad PR.

I don't like being forced to defend myself off-topic. Let's get along please.

I don’t include you in this either. I know how you feel and how passionate you are about multiplayer and why you want to know more. Im just agreeing your concerns are valid. But yeah, lets return to the topic. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[t_v]

2 minutes ago, Vl3d said:

I asked @Redneck a direct question about his preferences. We did not have 30 pages of his opinions.

And it is fine if they choose to respond, I am just saying that including that question in the discussion can detract from the point they are trying to make and is harmful to the discussion which was centered around a different aspect of the topic at that time. 

[Pthigrivi]

28 minutes ago, t_v said:

And it is fine if they choose to respond, I am just saying that including that question in the discussion can detract from the point they are trying to make and is harmful to the discussion which was centered around a different aspect of the topic at that time. 

He has a right to be curious though. I was interested in the answer myself. 
 

Anyway I think we’re seconds from being moderated so ah, has anyone else been worried about how multiplayer might conflict with things like reactor fuel and fuel cells and LS and other resources that might deplete over time?

[Redneck]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

I asked @Redneck a direct question about his preferences. We did not have 30 pages of his opinions.

I believe you have the wrong word: "naysayer - a person who criticizes, objects to, or opposes something". We don't oppose anything, we are just upset because of 2 months of silence about the game (except for the delay bad news).

We have not flooded anything, we are not working towards any leverage. We have stated clear arguments against the (lack of) communication strategy. That's all. I don't understand why some people choose to defend bad PR.

I don't like being forced to defend myself off-topic. Let's get along please.

@Vl3dsorry i wasn't trying to ignore you. I was just trying to stay on topic. Im trying not to derail the thread but at the same time it is the multiplayer "MEGATHREAD". i originally started a new topic or thread called " my thoughts on multiplayer" but the mods saw fit to just merge it in here so it could get lost with all the other crap. But i will answer your question.... The kind of multiplayer i want is ANY that i can share with a group of people. I would love most of all to be able share the same craft with a person or persons. A launch,the trip to orbit, on orbit coop because if we are going interstellar its going to take a group of people to construct something in orbit to achieve this. Some of these interstellar engine bells are 16m in Diameter. Just the engine alone. I prefer a coop of players working towards same goal to build that bad boy. Someone else asked me the same question you did a couple of weeks back. A more detailed overall answer to your question can be found here. 

 There are sooooooo many things I want to do. I want to share the cockpit with someone. (Extra can be done with mods if need be just give us the API to write the mods for it. I want to traverse inside the ship. A enhanced IVA if you will. Sleep,eat,research, do experiments inside the ship...etc etc) My main thing is to share the experience of space flight with a friend or group from launch to landing and everything in between. 2 astronauts walked the moon didnt they with a third in orbit? Only thing that was ever singleplayer or solo in real life was orbiting the earth everything else in real life has been 2 or more people doing it. Am I right? So why wouldnt this game be the same? Who the hell goes into space alone (unless you are testing like alan shepard) much less a planet alone. Never heard of such nonsense. Why would we want to do it in the game? :shrug:  Ive said it a thousand times i dont understand the debate over multiplayer vs single player...... If you want single player then play in offline mode. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND PEOPLE? (not directed at you personally VL3D) put a check in the GUI box and be happy........ I just dont get it. Why are we STILL debating this?

EDIT: this guy even seems to get it 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Redneck

[Vl3d]

6 hours ago, Redneck said:

There are sooooooo many things I want to do.

I think the most positive attitude towards multiplayer is talking about the types of experiences we want to have with other players.

I've also previously mentioned wanting to build an orbital refueling depot for players, or some kind of extreme sports tourist colony where I can sell buggies / powerful jetpacks, explore the exotic colonies of players that have landed months ago on distant planets, work with other players on deflecting a comet, play some kind of "first to the Mun" space race game type, do contracts for other players, finance my interstellar mission with my rare resources mines, just land the at "meeting spot" with my VTOL and check out other players ships, investigate the crash sites of players that tried to land on the Mun and failed or derelict ships in space with dead little kerbals onboard, fine a beacon and land on a planet in order to save a stranded kerbal.. a lot of other stuff.

The main reason why I'm so annoyed by not knowing anything about multiplayer is because I have so many hopes and wishes for a persistent world / emergent economy where there's a lot of possibilities for player interactions.

[t_v]

22 hours ago, Redneck said:

There are sooooooo many things I want to do. I want to share the cockpit with someone. (Extra can be done with mods if need be just give us the API to write the mods for it. I want to traverse inside the ship. A enhanced IVA if you will. Sleep,eat,research, do experiments inside the ship...etc etc) My main thing is to share the experience of space flight with a friend or group from launch to landing and everything in between. 2 astronauts walked the moon didnt they with a third in orbit? Only thing that was ever singleplayer or solo in real life was orbiting the earth everything else in real life has been 2 or more people doing it.

I would love to play like this too, and take on different roles in the ship. I could map out the maneuvers ahead while a friend flies them, or manage the action groups and internal systems of a complex ship, beaming data back and forth, making sure kerbals are happy and the ship isn’t getting hot and irradiated, etc. while other people focus on getting the mothership to its destinations, or flying, driving, and even sailing a planetary vessel while someone else transitions between all of its different states and makes sure things are running smoothly. I think that the experience of multiple people making up an entire, capable crew is a great one that I would love to have in the game (or have the ability to mod it in)

[Vl3d]

And having some kind of blueprint system to set module parameters and coordinate the players building subassemblies separately and then joining them as a whole craft. One does the science for the mission, one does electrical and comms, one the life support module etc.

Or be able to sell / buy on a subassemblies marketplace.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Vl3d

[pss88]

Upon 100th re-watch of the trailer I noticed obvious thing (yeah, me slow). On 1:43, after Dune an Orion-drive segment, there are two kerbals flying on some kind of probe thingies.

It's hard and pointless to do that in single-player stock KSP. So, is it only visual indication of multiplayer maybe?

And yes, I know it's cinematic and not in-game-engine footage.

[Bej Kerman]

20 minutes ago, pss88 said:

Upon 100th re-watch of the trailer I noticed obvious thing (yeah, me slow). On 1:43, after Dune an Orion-drive segment, there are two kerbals flying on some kind of probe thingies.

It's hard and pointless to do that in single-player stock KSP. So, is it only visual indication of multiplayer maybe?

And yes, I know it's cinematic and not in-game-engine footage.

You're reading into things too deeply

[PopinFRESH]

I really don't understand why people seem to have such certainty that multiplayer co-op is causing problems and is the reason for any of the delays. Designing for a single player only experience versus a co-op capable experience is significantly different. People still seem to think multiplayer is some sort of bolt-on mechanic afterthought that is now causing problems because things were designed for a single player experience. This isn't true and multiplayer, along with modding, have been core design considerations since they originally announced KSP2 and the original KSP2 Steam page was published. You don't do more than two years of design work on core systems and then start thinking about how multiplayer might work within those systems. If you set out to make a single player and/or multiplayer experience you'll design those core systems with those design considerations from the start. In regards to the scope or "type" of multiplayer, I think the changes to the Steam store page should point to what the expectation is. When it originally was published it was listed as "Multi-player". It was later changed to the more specific "Online Co-op". As such I don't expect there will be competitive elements to the multiplayer, such as the space race example. However, given they are also designing with the modding community in mind this type of space race multiplayer will likely be able to be done by the modding community.

 

On 5/28/2022 at 9:06 AM, Vl3d said:

And having some kind of blueprint system to set module parameters and coordinate the players building subassemblies separately and then joining them as a whole craft. One does the science for the mission, one does electrical and comms, one the life support module etc.

Or be able to sell / buy on a subassemblies marketplace.

This is an example of what I'm talking about above. In the videos where they've briefly shown building in the VAB one of the things that was shown is how you can simultaneously work on different subassemblies in the VAB rather than everything having to be joined to the "root" object like in KSP. This should be an obvious example of how they've been designing systems with co-op in mind. This example works equally well if I'm solo building some communication satellite subassemblies along with a rocket to put them into orbit, or if I'm doing the same thing with a friend. I also think the other aspects you're talking about (e.g. taking on different roles) "during a mission" will make sense for either solo or co-op play.

I'm not sure exactly what you're meaning by a subassemblies marketplace, however, I think you're suggesting like players publishing different craft to an online repository that other players can download the craft and load it in their VAB (e.g. a passive / asynchronous multiplayer). It seemed like you could individually save the different subassemblies which is sort of a blueprint so this seems feasible to be able to publish your saved craft to somewhere like with Steam Workshop or similar. Regardless of this type of online repository of craft designs, I definitely expect that players will be able to bring their own saved designs into a co-op session. As such this would essentially mean one could design various subassemblies solo, save them, and then join into a co-op session with a friend and they would each be able to load in their various subassemblies to adjoin them to a launch vehicle they are building together.

[pss88]

2 hours ago, PopinFRESH said:

It was later changed to the more specific "Online Co-op". As such I don't expect there will be competitive elements to the multiplayer, such as the space race example.

But what do you mean under term "Co-op" regarding KSP-2 then? One space agency, but players can fly different ships at the same time? Or fly near each other only? Or two players control same one ship and maybe different kerbals?

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, pss88 said:

But what do you mean under term "Co-op" regarding KSP-2 then? One space agency, but players can fly different ships at the same time? Or fly near each other only? Or two players control same one ship and maybe different kerbals?

All of these are big unknown and big discussion for us, but for a development studio that's just an item of a meeting some 3 or 4 years ago when they were in the design phase of the game.

[PopinFRESH]

11 minutes ago, pss88 said:

But what do you mean under term "Co-op" regarding KSP-2 then? One space agency, but players can fly different ships at the same time? Or fly near each other only? Or two players control same one ship and maybe different kerbals?

 

What I mean by Co-op is what that generally stands for, cooperative play; e.g. not competitive play. As I noted in my previous reply there are some glimpses they've shown of interfaces which seem fairly logical they are designed in a way to be able to be co-op. Based on how they've redesigned the VAB from what we've seen of it, that seems like it would function with multiple people snapping parts onto a craft in a co-op session such as two people working on two different subassemblies at the same time. Based on Nates previous interview with Scott Manley at their early glimpse in 2019 they originally described "4 launch pads" and "two runways" at the new KSC which would sound like accounting for different players to take control of different craft (rather than multiple players crewing the same craft).

Those are the two main aspects of co-op that I think are reasonable in my opinion. Cooperatively building and designing craft (akin to "collaborative editing" with multiple people editing the same document simultaneously) and multiple players simultaneously launching different missions to accomplish cooperative goals. If they go down to the nitty gritty of multiple players controlling the same vehicle as @Vl3d was suggesting I'd consider that a bonus.

 

[Vl3d]

2 hours ago, PopinFRESH said:

I'm not sure exactly what you're meaning by a subassemblies marketplace, however, I think you're suggesting like players publishing different craft to an online repository that other players can download the craft and load it in their VAB

No, not a separate online repo... I'm talking about an actual in-game marketplace with craft, subassemblies, resource trading, posting missions with a price tag, doing missions for other players.

Keep in mind that one of the devs is a MMO economics systems expert who previously worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game) and casino-type multiplayer games.

[PopinFRESH]

1 minute ago, Vl3d said:

No, not a separate online repo... I'm talking about an actual in-game marketplace with craft, subassemblies, resource trading, posting missions with a price tag, doing missions for other players.

Keep in mind that one of the devs is a MMO economics systems expert who previously worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game) and casino-type multiplayer games.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't foresee them doing any MMO-like elements such as that regardless of the developers prior work. I'm expecting something closer to Satisfactory/Astroneer/etc. type of peer-to-peer co-op where I can load up my save and you can join a co-op session to work together on doing things. I am definitely not expecting any global persistence or even a shared persistence. If that was the intended scope of multiplayer I don't think they would have changed the multiplayer type on the Steam store page to `Online Co-op`.

Interesting ideas though.

 

[DunaManiac]

3 hours ago, Vl3d said:

No, not a separate online repo... I'm talking about an actual in-game marketplace with craft, subassemblies, resource trading, posting missions with a price tag, doing missions for other players.

Keep in mind that one of the devs is a MMO economics systems expert who previously worked on Rift, UpperDeckU (card trading game) and casino-type multiplayer games.

It seems that you and I have a very different idea of what Multiplayer should look like. I see it as a small co-op between friends where the group works together to accomplish various tasks, because maintaining large servers adds undue cost and burdens that are better spent somewhere else. On the other hand, you see it as an MMO-style game where hundreds or thousands of people play together and trade between one another in some kind of galactic scale marketplace. Which there's nothing wrong with, and I can understand the appeal, but I would draw the line at a marketplace where you pay for things with actual currency for two reasons. Firstly, that would be an easy springboard to add micro transactions into the game or other mobile nonsense ("buy 1000 kerbucks for only $9.99 to buy those funds to keep playing!") Secondly, KSP is first and foremost a spaceflight exploration game. An in-game marketplace would put the marketplace first and spaceflight second.  You can't make the same argument about career mode because economic management adds another new and fun dimension to the game, but if you add the marketplace then it becomes all about saving up to buy someone's fancy rocket subassembly.  Frankly.... it just doesn't feel very KSP to pay 10000 funds to buy someone's craft.

[Pthigrivi]

6 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

It seems that you and I have a very different idea of what Multiplayer should look like. I see it as a small co-op between friends where the group works together to accomplish various tasks, because maintaining large servers adds undue cost and burdens that are better spent somewhere else. On the other hand, you see it as an MMO-style game where hundreds or thousands of people play together and trade between one another in some kind of galactic scale marketplace. Which there's nothing wrong with, and I can understand the appeal, but I would draw the line at a marketplace where you pay for things with actual currency for two reasons. Firstly, that would be an easy springboard to add micro transactions into the game or other mobile nonsense ("buy 1000 kerbucks for only $9.99 to buy those funds to keep playing!") Secondly, KSP is first and foremost a spaceflight exploration game. An in-game marketplace would put the marketplace first and spaceflight second.  You can't make the same argument about career mode because economic management adds another new and fun dimension to the game, but if you add the marketplace then it becomes all about saving up to buy someone's fancy rocket subassembly.  Frankly.... it just doesn't feel very KSP to pay 10000 funds to buy someone's craft.

Yeah the kind of trading I anticipate is ad hoc arrangements between players to trade resources or share supply routes.  None of that really needs to be formalized in a market. 

[PopinFRESH]

14 hours ago, DunaManiac said:

It seems that you and I have a very different idea of what Multiplayer should look like. I see it as a small co-op between friends where the group works together to accomplish various tasks, because maintaining large servers adds undue cost and burdens that are better spent somewhere else. On the other hand, you see it as an MMO-style game where hundreds or thousands of people play together and trade between one another in some kind of galactic scale marketplace. Which there's nothing wrong with, and I can understand the appeal, but I would draw the line at a marketplace where you pay for things with actual currency for two reasons. Firstly, that would be an easy springboard to add micro transactions into the game or other mobile nonsense ("buy 1000 kerbucks for only $9.99 to buy those funds to keep playing!") Secondly, KSP is first and foremost a spaceflight exploration game. An in-game marketplace would put the marketplace first and spaceflight second.  You can't make the same argument about career mode because economic management adds another new and fun dimension to the game, but if you add the marketplace then it becomes all about saving up to buy someone's fancy rocket subassembly.  Frankly.... it just doesn't feel very KSP to pay 10000 funds to buy someone's craft.

I don't believe they were intending "posting missions with a price tag" to mean "with actual currency", but rather like the current career mode missions have initial outlays and rewards for successfully completing them. I believe they are advocating to make that a type of system that is player-to-player. In my opinion this introduces a significantly different game than what the spirit of KSP is. It would be similar to making Out of the Park Baseball as a sequel to MLB The Show; that is to say it would turn the game into a management sim versus a space sim. I do also agree that all of that requires some form of global or shared persistence which means they would need to maintain infrastructure for it which means on-going operational costs.

I'm less concerned about the slippery slope argument toward micro transactions, however, I do understand the notion of hesitation there. With that type of system already in place it does seem to be more probable that Take Two could force their hand, even though they've clearly stated there will not be micro transactions, rather than doing something else like continued development of new DLC which would have a higher cost to deliver than "buy fake currency pack".

8 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yeah the kind of trading I anticipate is ad hoc arrangements between players to trade resources or share supply routes.  None of that really needs to be formalized in a market. 

I don't expect any type of trading be it via a marketplace or ad hoc. Any type of trading means there is some type of shared persistence among players, and secondly I don't think their goal is to add in that depth of resource management. I believe this will likely become more clear once they do a feature video to show off and talk about how colonies will work in a bit more depth. Hopefully we will get such a video around September and will have a better idea about how resources will work in that context which should help infer how resources might work more broadly, thus how that may or mayn't tie into multiplayer.

[asap1]

based on what I have seen in this thread and my personal opinion here's how I think multiplayer will pan out.

this type of multiplayer would be highly cooperative and would require coordination.

1. multiple players fulfilling positions on an individual craft or group of crafts

2. separated players managing vehicles and colonies and other stuff at separate rates of time

a resinc system will be implemented where all players can press a button(everybody has to press it to resinc) to resinc time once everything they need to do is done in their reference frame.

a single unsinced reference frame is essentially a singleplayer mode even in multiplayer till sinc occurs except with other players stuff in it.

you can dock with other players stuff in the past and when a resinc occurs that craft will remain docked(note in case of players in the future they will be prohibited from changing that structure till resinc.

when a resinc has been decided apon the players decide on a reference frame to sinc to usually the one farthest in the future.

players cooperating in the management of a vehicle or group of vehicles/colony will be treated as a single reference frame where one of those players has the ability to warp time but all others will be dragged along with that select player through time if they choose to warp(at resinc reference frame decision this will treated as a single reference frame)

a resinc consists of all craft being moved ahead in time(except for ones in the chosen reference frame) and their positions updated if they are in motion accordingly(so let's say the chosen reference frame is 10 months from your frame any satellites would move ahead by a certain distance depending apon their velocity). this means if you have an intercept for a craft coming up get that out of the way first otherwise you might miss intercept. you don't necessarily have to land the craft all you have to do is get it into orbit around your target planet or docked with your target craft.

tell me what you think about this idea

 

 

 

[SkyFall2489]

Let's step back a bit.

In the end, what will multiplayer give us? What do we want from it? I think there are 2 things:

1. Live cross-player interaction. Shoot missiles at your enemy's battleship, race planes through river canyons, get those epic trick shots.

2. Shared progress. Dock to a friend's refueling station, have a friend visit your moon base.

 

How do we accomplish those things when time-warp is involved? I've seen several solutions so far.

1. Single time. This gets limiting, but everyone is always together. The cons are that when one person wants to time warp, everyone has to time warp, and if a slow computer lags behind there can be issues.

2. No time warp. Self explanatory, as are the problems. Plus, KSP slows down in game time when the computer lags too much and must be re-synced.

3. Subspace warp. This is what is used by many multiplayer mods. Good in many cases, but to avoid time paradoxes there are some limits on who can interact with what. Already figured out and easy to implement compared to other solutions. Also, if you leave the server, and someone else warps a thousand years into the future and all your kerbals run out of life support, that's bad. (assuming there is life support. If not, the modding community of KSP is great.)

4. Credit to  @t_v - MMO. Not sure how to name this, but effectively players can be at different times to them, but their relative locations to the SOI center are displayed to others to allow for live interaction. Messes up physics sometimes, but offline players can be moving at 1x real time, so hopefully no kerbals starve.

5. My own idea - encounters. Effectively, you can link your world to another player's world, entering a combined world with some of the vessels from each of the old worlds appearing in it. Which ones appear, player's choice. Max limit of maybe 50 per player. Effectively, player 1 can select a refueling station, player 2 can select a ship low on fuel, and have those 2 ships be in 1 mini world consisting of one SOI and a single shared time. If either player exits the SOI, the encounter is over. Players can end the encounter manually, too. When the encounter ends, all ships in the encounter universe are put back in the old universe, with the pre-encounter ships deleted and time jumped forward by the amount of time that passed in the encounter. Doesn't break physics, you are in control of your own time so there is no accidental starvation, but someone may figure out how to duplicate ships using this. But if Squad let there be kraken drives and the community decided not to use them for the record setting missions, I think the same can be true with encounter based multiplayer.

 

A few other things about encounter multiplayer: 

1. might be hard to get too many players into an encounter at once, probably a max of 5-10 players before the single time drawbacks really come into play.

2. maybe, in science/career games, require players in an encounter to have a similar amount of progress? might be hard to define though.

3. Good because it means no special server world is really required, players can let people join their otherwise single player worlds. Also, a minimal amount of stuff must be synchronized, keeping things clean and not computer roasting.

 

Resync will be an issue with all of these, as not everyone has a NASA supercomputer. I have a MacBook Pro. Hopefully, the devs can make the game run smoother to mitigate this, or offload computation to the better computer, but this will be always an issue.

Edited July 8, 2022 by SkyFall2489