Kerbal Space Program 2 to be released in 2022 [Discussion Thread]

[Vl3d]

50 minutes ago, pwatx1 said:

Private Division could treat multiplayer function as a DLC

The devs mentioned a number of times that multiplayer is a fundamental part of the design architecture of the new game and that making multiplayer work was THE most challenging feature of the game.

Not one of, but "THE central technical challenge of this game was the overhaul of the architecture that is required to facilitate multiplayer" (Nate, Purdue Space Podcast, 38:00).

I cannot emphasize this idea enough. KSP2 is fundamentally built for multiplayer, but will also allow single player DRM free gameplay.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Vl3d

[Pthigrivi]

50 minutes ago, pwatx1 said:

I think Private Division could treat multiplayer function as a DLC,

I'd be fine with it being included in the first big free update, personally. Make sure single player is running smoothly before introducing it. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[WelshSteW]

2 hours ago, Vl3d said:

The devs mentioned a number of times that multiplayer is a fundamental part of the design architecture of the new game and that making multiplayer work was THE most challenging feature of the game.

Not one of, but "THE central technical challenge of this game was the overhaul of the architecture that is required to facilitate multiplayer" (Nate, Purdue Space Podcast, 38:00).

I cannot emphasize this idea enough. KSP2 is fundamentally built for multiplayer, but will also allow single player DRM free gameplay.

 

Selfishly, I kind of hope this isn't true. I hope nothing of the single player game has been compromised in order to crowbar multiplayer in. I say selfishly, because I know some people really really want multiplayer, but for me, I'll never use it.

 

[Deddly]

1 hour ago, WelshSteW said:

I say selfishly, because I know some people really really want multiplayer, but for me, I'll never use it.

It seems to be a rarity these days that people can acknowledge the feelings of others. For that, you get internet points from the Positive Forum Movement.

Personally, I think multiplayer has the potential to be a lot of fun, but I fear it'll be full of griefers and will be a place where wars are fought. If the developers are spending extra time to make sure that doesn't happen, then I'll happily let them take their time. Like you, @WelshSteW, multiplayer isn't a priority for me, but I understand it's something that others have been waiting a very long time for.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Deddly said:

Personally, I think multiplayer has the potential to be a lot of fun, but I fear it'll be full of griefers and will be a place where wars are fought.

Honestly it's a bit sad that nobody ever acknowledges small 2-8 people coop games as multiplayer or that is what multiplayer could possibly mean.

And yet it's there where multiplayer really shines, same old friends of always, a private modded Minecraft server this week, a Factorio run the next and, why not, a shared KSP2 save in which anyone plays their own missions, some of which are collaboration on bigger projects.

 

I certainly hope that no changes to the single player are made to make the multiplayer work, and that the effort goes mostly in guaranteeing the best single player game they can possibly make, with the option of playing it with friends.

[PDCWolf]

You can hella see the influence the modding community has when materializing ideas into tangible mods. When people talk about multiplayer they don't even question the monolithic persistent server + hotjoin clients model that both MP  mods used. I envision multiplayer more or less like that as well, but I'd value small games much more: I dislike per-player timewarp, and would prefer timewarp to be host-fixed. That's a huge no for big, public servers, but definitely the way to go for small, all-together sessions. Plus now that we'll have FTL timewarp might not be as necessary once that tech is unlocked.

I'd go as far as to guess all possible solutions have already been mentioned and thought out, which is why they were so confident to promise multiplayer two individual times, and sell it as a base feature for the sequel. Like pretty much every other big "feature" they've "made", the modding community solved the problems first, and all they had to do is watch and learn, and then copy (or just hire the modder lol).

[SciMan]

Small multiplayer is something I'd be more than willing to get behind.
Heck, I already proposed being able to be "a craft design firm" as a way to support your space program rather than going out and harvesting resources (instead relying on the fact that you've hit upon a popular and effective design, that is in high demand, and people are willing to contribute (very specifically in-game-only) resources and/or funds in order to be able to make use of those designs themselves.

I'd love that, because for me personally, KSP is very much about the "build" and "dream" and I don't focus much on the "fly", because I've been playing since 0.13.3 and the novelty of manual piloting has lost its shine to me, I don't want to have to fly something to orbit for the 1000th time.

And I certainly don't jive with the "Fly" part of "atmospheric flight" or "rovers" at all, due to the endless tirade I could put here about my personal issues with the way KSP 1 handles wheels, and my lack of a controller so my landings with aircraft are either an outright crash, or very reminiscent of a Ryanair landing's "intentional firmness" (and yes they land that hard on purpose, if you have only one procedure for landing, the pilots won't get confused, and in rain you need to PLANT the landing gear on the runway quite firmly to avoid hydroplaning, so with Ryanair at least, all landings are done as if the runway had standing water on it).
And at high speeds, no matter how well I design them my rovers seem to flip a coin every half second to see if they spontaneously flip or not, despite me not having my hands on the steering controls (seriously, I wish we could go back to whatever wheel system they were using right when rover wheels were introduced, it might have been less customizable but at least the rovers didn't flip nearly as much and the landing gear didn't spontaneously slide down the slightest of slopes as quickly as it does these days).

But as far as release date, I don't particularly care if it releases in 2022 or not. I mean, I'd love it if it does, but if there are good reasons that it can't be done, then so be it.

Besides, this thread has devolved off-topic from "what is the release date" to "what is Intercept doing wrong with their marketing/information sharing (or lack thereof)", and I wish we could either get back to the original topic or just lock/voluntarily stop posting to this thread and start a new thread with the topic that we're actually discussing here, since there's a discrepancy there.

EDIT:

On the topic of what changes might have to be made to Singleplayer so that Multiplayer can be made to work well, the only thing I can think of is that it switches from being a "monolithic game" architecture like KSP 1, to a "game server running on 127.0.0.1 (aka localhost/loopback) with game client running on the same physical hardware as game server" model (I think this is basically what Factorio does for its singleplayer, but I am unsure), but at least from the player's point of view that kind of change shouldn't make a difference in how the game "feels".
IDK what kind of "game balance" changes they might have to make to make the multiplayer work that would have to be brought over to singleplayer, but then again they could be aiming for a "seamless drop-in-drop-out multiplayer" type system (like Satisfactory) where at any point you can take the save you're playing on, and invite a few friends over to either show them around or have them help out with some task that would otherwise take you longer to complete than you like.
But that "drop-in-drop-out" style multiplayer is yet another one of those things that doesn't necessarily translate to them having to re-balance anything in the game mechanics themselves.

However, I can think of one non-required "balancing" sort of change that I would like to see happen because it would help players translate KSP rocket physics into something you could apply to IRL.
Instead of resources being measured in dimensionless "units", put the proper dang units next to them!

• For liquid resources, you'd use Liters or m³ (with a smaller number in parenthesis telling you how many Kilograms or metric tons that works out to)
• For solid resources (perhaps handled as powders for 3d printers and/or other additive manufacturing, or billet for more traditional subtractive manufacturing processes?) you'd use the plain old Kg (with similarly, a smaller number in parenthesis telling you how many L or m³ that works out to)
• For electricity you'd have Kilowatt-hours (with an "Energy density" figure in parenthesis, I guess it would have to be WH/kg, and if batteries have a limited charge/discharge rate I guess we'd also have to have a "Power density" figure as well, this would make Supercapacitors sometimes a good option instead of regular Batteries because of their ability to release an incredible amount of energy in a short time period) (and since we're not specifying a voltage or current, we are forced to use a simple "energy" value for electrical storage devices, but we can also use things like flywheel energy storage which is again another high power density storage method);

I think that about covers it as far as the units that KSP doesn't use, but the idea behind it is that it both saves you from doing some unit conversions if you want to use the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation yourself to manually calculate your Delta-V, as well as helping to complete the picture given to you that "Hey, maybe all that math you learned in math and physics classes has a place here" (assuming you've taken those classes that is).
Another benefit is that it also solves the problem of "learning things that you don't know the applications of" (which doesn't work well), by giving you a situation where you need to apply that stuff you are learning to the problems that face you. Applied knowledge sticks in your brain FAR longer than knowledge you've never used.

Edited May 2, 2022 by SciMan

[Pthigrivi]

A really gorgeous game that uses relatively small numbers of players sharing a world is Book of Travels. It feels really intimate and personal that way, even with strangers. Sad that it's hit such a rocky patch in its development. 

[Vl3d]

1 hour ago, Master39 said:

yet it's there where multiplayer really shines, same old friends of always

Some of us really don't have friends to play KSP with.

[razark]

You can probably find some people to play with right here.  I'm expecting to see people forming groups on the forum, and you'll have a choice of what sort of playstyle you want.

[Bej Kerman]

1 hour ago, Vl3d said:

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

yet it's there where multiplayer really shines, same old friends of always

Some of us really don't have friends to play KSP with.

Just join an active server or something. It's hard not to get friends unless you actively don't go out of your way to avoid meeting new people.

[PDCWolf]

3 hours ago, SciMan said:

biggest snip

I think how much they share is directly related to how much they can actually share, which is directly dictated by how far along they're in the development. This, in turn, is directly related to the confidence level of the current release date. Having had 2 further years to develop the product, they're still sharing more or less the same stuff, this definitely changes our confidence about the release date, at least for the people that read it that way. It is related, I'd say.

[Pthigrivi]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

I certainly hope that no changes to the single player are made to make the multiplayer work, and that the effort goes mostly in guaranteeing the best single player game they can possibly make, with the option of playing it with friends.

One place this could happen would be in simplifying LS so that there is no depleting resource, which would be a missed opportunity I think. Even if you could get closed loop LS for colonies and stations with big heavy recyclers I think considering flight-duration and living off the land in the design process would be key game dynamics. For instance on interstellar journeys if time isn't a factor why not underbuild and then set it for a 300y timewarp? Unless you were worried your reactor would run out of fuel and the power to hab modules and LS would shut off? Not that they'd all die, they'd just arrive grumpy and limit your science returns and ISRU harvesting, but it would be an incentive at least.

The other problem might be quicksaves and reloads. Correct me if Im wrong but I seem to remember these still could lead to paradoxes. Reverts on launch aren't as big a deal because they only work before you've interacted with anything. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Pthigrivi

[TheOrbitalMechanic]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

I think how much they share is directly related to how much they can actually share, which is directly dictated by how far along they're in the development. This, in turn, is directly related to the confidence level of the current release date. Having had 2 further years to develop the product, they're still sharing more or less the same stuff, this definitely changes our confidence about the release date, at least for the people that read it that way. It is related, I'd say.

The other option is that, regardless of their confidence level in the release date, they're still just too far out to start sharing a bunch more info. I guess we'll see which one of these it ends up being in the next few months.

[obnox twin]

So what release date we are expecting I am think that it would be before December as thats when video game sales skyrocket.

[MechBFP]

19 minutes ago, obnox twin said:

So what release date we are expecting I am think that it would be before December as thats when video game sales skyrocket.

That is virtually guaranteed to be the goal for sure. Especially with a game like Starfield coming out around the same time, further peaking interest in space games, it would be pretty terrible to miss it.

So in my opinion the game is coming out in 2022, hell or high water.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, obnox twin said:

So what release date we are expecting I am think that it would be before December as thats when video game sales skyrocket.

National Churro Day 

[obnox twin]

13 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

National Churro Day 

lol most likely between june to October/November 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 minutes ago, obnox twin said:

lol most likely between june to October/November 

Seriously - it has to be National Churro Day... Otherwise I lose the office pool. 

Spoiler

ASPERANDNateSimpson wouldn't do that to me, would he? 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[TLTay]

I still remember the feeling that I had when I saw this post for the first time...

We'll look fondly back on those feelings when  it releases in late 2023.

(I'm just being sarcastic, don't light me on fire.)

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

22 minutes ago, TLTay said:

I still remember the feeling that I had when I saw this post for the first time...

We'll look fondly back on those feelings when  it releases in late 2023.

(I'm just being sarcastic, don't light me on fire.)

Guess it could be Nov 5, 2022 - just so KSP2 can be released 2 years after thread OP... 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[The Aziz]

6 hours ago, MechBFP said:

Especially with a game like Starfield coming out around the same time, further peaking interest in space games, it would be pretty terrible to miss it.

Yes but actually no. There's a thing about competition. If you release two similar games right next to each other, one of them will suffer from this. Usually the more niche one, no matter how good it is. While the initial sales may be great, the further interest will drop significantly. I've seen it before.

So please don't. Get at the very least a month difference between big space game launches. If possible of course.

[Superfluous J]

12 hours ago, Vl3d said:

Some of us really don't have friends to play KSP with.

That does not in the least mean that playing with strangers will be a positive experience.

[Vl3d]

7 minutes ago, Superfluous J said:

That does not in the least mean that playing with strangers will be a positive experience.

We're talking about 4 things:

(1) playing co-op with max 3 other players inside your space agency

(2) seeing other players crafts and colonies but having limited interaction with them

(3) having a contracts and trading system and interface that allows multiple space agencies to indirectly interact: ex. you ask for a satellite with some specs and pay another agency to build and/or launch it etc.

(4) having a "grand projects" system that allows multiple space agencies to interact by building together or contributing (craft, station segments, resources etc.) ex. a huge space station or interstellar mission

I know that what's in my mind has to be explained 1000 times so it gets built in your minds also. But believe me, the vision for this game is huge and amazing. I just hope the devs also saw it.

[Gargamel]

We have a separate thread for discussion of multiplayer.   Please keep that topic there.