KSP 2 Multiplayer Discussion Thread

[PTNLemay]

As a sort of "casual" player, I'm curious to know how pausing would work.  I like to progress my game very gradually.  Putting in a few hours here and there, a mission or two, then maybe going a day without opening the game again.  Real life keeps me busy.

Assuming a server that's set up for a "space race" scenario (if MP ends up being like that).  I imagine the easiest way to deal with it is to not worry about it.  Those who have the time to pour tons of hours into the game progress much faster.  And those who can't go more slowly.  This is fine if you trust your team mates (and they too are approaching the game in a more casual style), but it gets more messy if the competition is taken more seriously.  One option that could force equality (that I hope they don't implement) is alloted time slots.  If player A is up to 20 hours, but player B is only at 10 hours, then A has to wait for B to catch up.  This would be more "fair", but a lot more annoying for the long-running players.

Regarding the concerns people have with multiplayer ending up too competitive, I think what would help is too keep the number of players in a server small.  Less than 8, maybe even just 4 or 5.  This way you can more easily check and verify the players.  Keep it as close-knit groups.  You're less likely to have that one guy who wants to conquer the whole server by bombing everyone else's VAB using kinetic kill warheads.  And judging by how hard it has traditionally been to implement MP, I think the small number of players will be forced upon the devs.

[Drakenred65]

Tobe honest it kind of sounds like multiplayer is notgoing to be that feature complete or complicated currently from the sound of things, bevause getting the game into shape as a single player game is priority one. Which to be honest I approve.

[boolybooly]

I think cooperative play would mostly be friendly. A space race scenario needs another KSC or two or three but I could see that as a benefit for coop play as well. Some people will want to play adversarially so let them IMHO, so it needs at least two if not more game modes i.e. coop and competitive but protect hosts of coop games against trolls.

I think it would be good to share universes in coop as well as ship designs and also sub-assemblies, so one player can build a lift section while another one builds payload kinda thing. Or one player can provide a ship another player pilots. Or two pilots can take off independantly and rendezvous. In all cases players should be able to import designs from their SP saves.

If a host uses their own built on SP universe map to host MP it should be copied and firewalled from the hosts original SP universe save in case trolls get into games and do bad things. It should be possible to save in MP universe and import-/export from-/to the SP universe for both hosts and guests, so if trolls or disasters occur in a MP shared scenario the host can revert the MP universe or if all goes well the host or guest can export the MP session save into a SP save and keep playing it in SP.

The notion of competitive play introduces the possibility of scoring achievements. Also rules regarding foul play such as accidentally dropping a stage on a competitors launch pad for example. Some competitive game modes this should result in a penalty against the offender but in others like open warfare mode it would not be naughty but an achievement!  So different modes would need different rules and different methods for scoring achievements.

N.B. it should be noted that HarvesteR was absolutely against weapons as components for craft in KSP and I agree with this but I also note people want to play in their own way and some players do like to find ways of using KSP to do battle so IMHO this should at least be recognised and if not encouraged at least permitted.

Edited September 1, 2019 by boolybooly

[mattinoz]

2 hours ago, boolybooly said:

I think cooperative play would mostly be friendly. A space race scenario needs another KSC or two or three but I could see that as a benefit for coop play as well. Some people will want to play adversarially so let them IMHO, so it needs at least two if not more game modes i.e. coop and competitive but protect hosts of coop games against trolls.

I think it would be good to share universes in coop as well as ship designs and also sub-assemblies, so one player can build a lift section while another one builds payload kinda thing. Or one player can provide a ship another player pilots. Or two pilots can take off independantly and rendezvous. In all cases players should be able to import designs from their SP saves.

If a host uses their own built on SP universe map to host MP it should be copied and firewalled from the hosts original SP universe save in case trolls get into games and do bad things. It should be possible to save in MP universe and import-/export from-/to the SP universe for both hosts and guests, so if trolls or disasters occur in a MP shared scenario the host can revert the MP universe or if all goes well the host or guest can export the MP session save into a SP save and keep playing it in SP.

The notion of competitive play introduces the possibility of scoring achievements. Also rules regarding foul play such as accidentally dropping a stage on a competitors launch pad for example. Some competitive game modes this should result in a penalty against the offender but in others like open warfare mode it would not be naughty but an achievement!  So different modes would need different rules and different methods for scoring achievements.

N.B. it should be noted that HarvesteR was absolutely against weapons as components for craft in KSP and I agree with this but I also note people want to play in their own way and some players do like to find ways of using KSP to do battle so IMHO this should at least be recognised and if not encouraged at least permitted.

Given Colonies get be built on Kerbin. Each player could start with a colony that is capable of some ship building. Tactics from there could then vary based on objective.

[Klapaucius]

I realize this may sound like a trite comment, but I mean it sincerely:

 

I've been playing a form of KSP multiplayer since I started. It's called the Challenges forum. Yes, of course, we are not interacting in real time, but we are all working on the same goal.  In some cases, as with @Triop's rallies, we are all in a kind of competition...in our own single-player space, but at the same time engaged with the wider community.  Or with @KergarinWalker Challenge, which was just insanely fun as we all figured out the mechanics of the new DLC and posted our, um, masterpieces.  This is the give and take and sharing that I really enjoy.

 

And as someone who currently lives in New Zealand, the likelihood I will be able to participate in events hosted by players in Europe and North America is pretty small.  Forget timewarp in KSP, there is timezone in real life, and that leaves a lot of players stranded.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Klapaucius

[Xd the great]

8 hours ago, Klapaucius said:

And as someone who currently lives in New Zealand, the likelihood I will be able to participate in events hosted by players in Europe and North America is pretty small.  Forget timewarp in KSP, there is timezone in real life, and that leaves a lot of players stranded.

Time to introduce your friends to the madness of KSP.

[boolybooly]

I ran searches for this and I cant find a recent reference to the idea of animated Kerbal emotes in KSP2. Though there were modder suggestions about this as far back as 2014 for KSP1.

IMHO multiplayer in particular would make whole body animated emotes for Kerbals entertaining and these would also facilitate video producers trying to get Kerbals to act.

[TaskForce141]

The perfect MP as I see it will simply allow one player to enable interactions (which are disabled by default) with other player's vessels. You won't intersect with anybody by default, if you wan't you just click on 'em, "Allow interactions" and voila.

I personally don't see unrestricted timewarps as a problem by any mean. For the sake of solving it you can allow to restrict it on a local scale too: click on a player, "Invite to timezone group" (what will restrict only further warps) and just wait for their acception. Everybody happy.

On top of that server configuration with things like "Always interact", "Always the same timezone" and such. Restricting anything on all servers and/or global scale doesn't sound good to me, customization won't harm anyone.

 

[LorenLuke]

Firstly-
Every game that has multiplayers will have grief. But not every multiplayer game is mechanically built around preventing grief. And not every multiplayer has the same amount of grief, per capita of community. But those games do not tank because of lack of grief-countering mechanics; the players moderate, curate, and police themselves. I don't expect that to be any different here, and if you're worried about people griefing, the rules are simple- ensure everyone you play with is vetted and trustworthy, and (using the EVE axiom) do not fly anything you do not expect to lose at any point in time. Malicious behavior and accidental staging, especially in Ironman/no-reversion contexts suck, but we manage; next time (hopefully) we've fixed the mistake and rectified the conditions that caused that (which would include giving any mean-spirited sod the boot). Things like autosaving, and permissions (both in VAB and in flight), or vessel protections (making 'protected' vessels that cannot be interacted with by other players) can always be implemented, but can all be supplanted simply by being on guard against who you play with.

 

Secondly-
One of the things that I'm glad to see is people suggesting the notion of multi-crew (aka 'One player, one kerbal'). Given what was released in breaking ground (and what's possible in the Kerbal Attachment System and Kerbal Inventory System mods) EVAs would be much more involved (and possibly involve a good amount teamwork), plus what we know is possible as far as IVAs (thanks to things like to MOARdV's MAS and RasterPropMonitor), being able to delegate certain responsibilities in multicrew to certain seats. But one of the things that I've been wanting, and would love to see built-in capability to do would be a 'pilot and ground crew' multiplayer. Certainly not as exciting as the other multiplayer, but still would be fun as far as I'm concerned to have people monitor telemetry and look over flight data while we have the pilot stuck in the cockpit view (plus things like 'Oh, Scrap!' random failures or the like might mean that a competent ground crew would *actually* be considered a boon for the pilot) for a sort of cooperative, yet asymmetric, multiplayer. Plus the ground crew being the only other players, such wouldn't be so dramatically affected by any timewarpage.

[Xd the great]

52 minutes ago, LorenLuke said:

Secondly-
One of the things that I'm glad to see is people suggesting the notion of multi-crew (aka 'One player, one kerbal'). Given what was released in breaking ground (and what's possible in the Kerbal Attachment System and Kerbal Inventory System mods) EVAs would be much more involved (and possibly involve a good amount teamwork), plus what we know is possible as far as IVAs (thanks to things like to MOARdV's MAS and RasterPropMonitor), being able to delegate certain responsibilities in multicrew to certain seats. But one of the things that I've been wanting, and would love to see built-in capability to do would be a 'pilot and ground crew' multiplayer. Certainly not as exciting as the other multiplayer, but still would be fun as far as I'm concerned to have people monitor telemetry and look over flight data while we have the pilot stuck in the cockpit view (plus things like 'Oh, Scrap!' random failures or the like might mean that a competent ground crew would *actually* be considered a boon for the pilot) for a sort of cooperative, yet asymmetric, multiplayer. Plus the ground crew being the only other players, such wouldn't be so dramatically affected by any timewarpage.

I can imagine we will be arguing a lot, and someone will be backseat driving.

[T42592]

Second Life tackled MP with free roaming coupled with no interaction coupling. 

For example, KSP2:

K1 is original user/team/group.

K2 is visiting user/team/group.

---

K1 erects a structure. 

K2 actions no effect on K1 objects. 

K2 requests join.

K1 grants K2 add-on (AO) / no-change (NC) permissions.

K2 augments structure. 

--- 

Problem solved.

Edited September 5, 2019 by T42592

[T42592]

On 8/20/2019 at 8:21 AM, Kernel Kraken said:

I honestly want Squad to leave multiplayer out just to infuriate y'all.

Without context of what MP would entail, it's conjecture as to 'what' MP would bring to the program. 

I'd like some feedback from the devs as to what this would look like before I dismiss MP.

[T42592]

On 8/19/2019 at 5:10 PM, Johnster_Space_Program said:

So, how do you think multiplayer, a thing we've all (or some) of us wanted in ksp for some time and are now getting in KSP 2, will work? 

Aside from separate server suggestion, "IF" devs incorporate MP, fleshing out MP would be a monumental step requiring a robust infrastructure on the backend. While I see the devs developing the code, to fully implement the MP aspect, a third-party would be ideal that is well versed in bringing MP loads and frontend frames per second (fps) to end-users at reasonable rates. 

If the global community is segmented by region, or country, MP is possible. Otherwise, if the entire global community is in one node, disaster will follow. MP, if it is to be included, must begin designing, developing, and testing user loads now- not later. 

As for the granular aspect of MP:

1. Co-pilots

2. Passengers

3. Last Save Last Respawn

4. Death Respawn Penalty

As for roles, building, flight, maintenance, are fairly straightforward. In the KSP2 world, unless these roles are coded as OPTIONAL,  MP is a glorified tourist.

[Xd the great]

I feel like MPs will limit timewrap for long term flight, due to problems with other players' contraptions launching.

So, a griefer just have to launch rockets occasionally to mess with people's interplanetary launches.

[Technical Ben]

IIRC in the interviews, they programed this with physics sync up in mind... though, they kinda just said, "it was a factor", but not if they solved it.

So I'd assume concurrent flights. If the code is too broken though, they could instead make colony resupply the multiplayer factor. You see other craft docked/etc, and each player can supply the other (and thus time warp/sync would put the supplied there when you reach that time stamp on your game). I could see that working, even as a "MP lite" mode.

[T42592]

On 8/21/2019 at 9:58 AM, Kernel Kraken said:

Personally, I don't get why people don't want multiplayer in KSP. It gives people more optiond on how they want to play the game, and I kinda want to try it. It wouldn't affect the people who don't want it, and the people who want it could get an officially supported feature that would probable be less buggy than mods as there's money to be made in it. I don't get why there's a debate. Just add and ignore it if you don't want to play it.

Personally, back in days as a SCI engineer, collaboration came with a cost, both in coordination, planning, and design.  Albeit, not entirely relevant to a game, KSP is nonetheless, a pure sandbox- void of technical specifications, engineering parameters, quality controls. 

Having stated that, I cannot fully appreciate how MP will be advantageous without solid sandbox rules (construction, build, maintenance, recovery).

At best, KSP MP is, or will ultimately be, a novelty. 

 

[Guest]

Y'all reinventing the wheel trying to figure out time warp, just remember that the DMP and KMP mods have already found solutions to that, solutions which very likely will be recycled into KSP2 seeing as they worked

Edited September 9, 2019 by Guest

[razark]

7 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

Y'all reinventing the wheel trying to figure out time warp, just remember that the DMP and KMP mods have already found solutions to that, solutions which very likely will be recycled into KSP2 seeing as they worked

Not everyone agrees that the way it has been "solved" is the correct way.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, razark said:

Not everyone agrees that the way it has been "solved" is the correct way.

DMP gave the server multiple options to solve time-warping, if there was an absolute "correct way" as you say that would please 100% of people it'd already have been implemented there

Edited September 9, 2019 by Guest

[razark]

4 minutes ago, Aperture Science said:

DMP gave the server multiple options to solve time-warping...

I was unaware of that.  Every version of MP mod time-warp solution I've heard described to me was basically identical.  None of them ever described a method that prevented paradox.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, razark said:

I was unaware of that.  Every version of MP mod time-warp solution I've heard described to me was basically identical.  None of them ever described a method that prevented paradox.

Not exactly preventing paradoxes per say, but more of doing workarounds (this isn't something limited by the game, but rather by the nature of time itself). The only way to 100% solve the time warp paradox is if everyone timewarps at the same speed at the same time (already implemented) - another way that isn't as elegant but makes the game more playable is for example warping only your ship while keeping others at their own timewarp (also already implemented). IIRC there are more options, but it's been a while since I messed with multiplayer.

[CocoDaPuf]

On 8/19/2019 at 8:18 PM, Loskene said:

There'll have to be some sort of server control or vote system for timewarp but I don't know how you'll do rolling back time to revert to VAB. How does the multiplayer mod for KSP1 handle that?

My bet - It handles it with additional free kerbal recruits...

[Guest]

16 hours ago, CocoDaPuf said:

My bet - It handles it with additional free kerbal recruits...

No it'll be like current mods

[mattinoz]

On 9/10/2019 at 5:24 AM, razark said:

I was unaware of that.  Every version of MP mod time-warp solution I've heard described to me was basically identical.  None of them ever described a method that prevented paradox.

There is a lot a space in space to handle such things. So why does paradox need to be prevented?

Seems to me letting Paradox build up then tasking players to drop in to the timeline to correct it could be an awful lot of fun in its own right.

[Bartybum]

8 hours ago, mattinoz said:

There is a lot a space in space to handle such things. So why does paradox need to be prevented?

Seems to me letting Paradox build up then tasking players to drop in to the timeline to correct it could be an awful lot of fun in its own right.

It provides a lot of freedom and doesn't end up bogging down the game. User-activated syncing is the way to go in my opinion.