Multiplayer question, how important it is to you?

[Piotrr]

After seeing majority of voters in https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/216402-multiplayer-question-what-kind-of-player-are-you-marczewski’s-gamification-user-types/ being either Free Spirits or Achievers I wonder on general attitude towards multiplayer.

Personally, I'd consider game not less valuabe if multiplayer never made it into milestone list. Still, the fact that every game aspect is developed with multiplayer in mind might lead to some exciting interactions in singleplayer campaigns.

[The Aziz]

I don't like playing with strangers and I don't have any friends who would play it.

[Periple]

I'm really looking forward to introducing KSP2 to some of my friends and family through multiplayer, and then playing it with them! If you count hours though I'm pretty sure I'll be mostly single-player.

[Majorjim!]

I don’t think multiplayer will be as fun as people think it will.. once everyone has had some sort of air or ground battle in and around the KSC, performance permitting it will get stale real fast. 
 Although building world bases together in a persistent server could be fun I guess. 

[TLTay]

I really hope multiplayer wasn't the source of the delays. KSP is niche enough that many people will not have any friends that also play it. It's one thing for a friend to buy "shooter version 23.4 from MegaCorp" to play with their friends (they play that kind of thing already), it's quite another for them to buy "semi-realistic rocketry program with intensive learning curve" because that one friend with tape on their glasses plays it.

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, Piotrr said:

Personally, I'd consider game not less valuabe if multiplayer never made it into milestone list.

Good thing it was promised, then. Too bad it's been promised and dropped before so not like a proper promise has any value.

I'm not super interested in Multiplayer, and believe KSP2 (or 1) don't let itself well to Multiplayer, specially since building launchers and vehicles is not cooperative (as in the VAB. Yes, you can dock stuff in space, not what I mean) and can't be done on site. HOWEVER multiplayer is a debt from KSP1 and must be at least in 2 for my review to ever turn positive.

Edit to include proper archive link:

https://archive.is/hjWs8

Also their Tumblr back when they loosely mentioned Multiplayer and Colonies as "possible" upcoming DLCs for KSP1 but without taking any compromise.

Edited April 14, 2023 by PDCWolf

[Guest]

The more multiplayer topics I read on this forum the sadder I get for the kind of experiences that must have traumatized the KSP community to get to this level of apprehension towards multiplayer.

 

6 minutes ago, TLTay said:

It's one thing for a friend to buy "shooter version 23.4 from MegaCorp" to play with their friends (they play that kind of thing already), it's quite another for them to buy "semi-realistic rocketry program with intensive learning curve" because that one friend with tape on their glasses plays it.

KSP may be difficult on a conceptual level, yes you have to learn orbital mechanics, they're not easy.

But as a game is not harder than Modded Factorio or Minecraft, or strategy games like Stellaris, and flying may be a hard skill to learn, but it's not any harder than landing headshots in an FPS, learning how to position yourself as a tank in an hero shooter or driving in a race game.

 

17 minutes ago, Majorjim! said:

I don’t think multiplayer will be as fun as people think it will.. once everyone has had some sort of air or ground battle in and around the KSC, performance permitting it will get stale real fast. 
 Although building world bases together in a persistent server could be fun I guess. 

What it is that makes it get stale faster than Minecraft or Factorio?

 

I think we're all missing a whole category of players, I have 230 hours on Factorio, not a lot compared to other more dedicated players, but enough to count as more than the playtime I have on most AAA games. I never finished a single run in single player, I'm simply not interested in doing so. For me Factorio is a multiplayer game and every so often I start a new run with the same friends I've always played it with for the past few years.

I bet there's plenty of people not interested in single player runs, but that will jump to the game as soon as they can build something together, maybe with that friend of them constantly talking about Kerbal. I know at least a few. 

[Ferio]

Not so much looking forward to multiplayer as it won't be multiplayer as we know it from other games, where you can just free roam and encounter many other players. It will a game where you start together in a lobby and invite up to about 3 to 5 other players (such as ANNO 1800) with a save game option and one agency together or maybe several agencies where each person controls one. Which doesn't really work with strangers, since the game consumes so much time that you really need to play with friends, as you will use that save to continue.

There could be some other triggers in game such as missions that require cooperation and temporally sync players together.

The other thing you probably will see are limited remains of other players that can sync to your game, such as satellites, debris etc.

Anyway above is just my idea how I understand the MP works, but I do hope that it will be more open, so when you continue your multiplayer game, your agency will sync to different servers each time with some other player agencies on it, which you can see constantly. Perhaps as a rule;  synced to people who are in the same year as you or same technology level, but I think that's not the case (yet).

 

That's why I hope there will be an option for AI space agencies, not just from the start, but also further developed from the start or new agencies develop during playing, to make it more interesting. Space agencies can go broke, merge together, spy on each other,  sabotage, share technologies (or steal), competition for milestones or even create missions for  eachother such as bring a lost pilot back of you for cash, or bring a satellite in orbit (all with chances to fail) in case you don't want to do that.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Ferio

[Scarecrow71]

The only person I can trust to not hose me, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in any game is me.  Nothing against other people, and I say play the way that makes you happy.  But I refuse to play multiplayer primarily because I don't trust other players.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Ferio said:

Not so much looking forward to multiplayer as it won't be multiplayer as we know it from other games, where you can just free roam and encounter many other players. It will a game where you start together in a lobby and invite up to about 3 to 5 other players (such as ANNO 1800) with a save game option and one agency together or maybe several agencies where each person controls one. Which doesn't really work with strangers, since the game consumes so much time that you really need to play with friends, as you will use that save to continue.

That's just a description of how multiplayer works in probably half of the games out there.

When "Multiplayer" became a term uniquely limited to MMOs or games with matchmaking and random people?

It's not like "normal" multiplayer games are unpopular or niche, what you describe is exactly how the multiplayer for Minecraft mostly* works, you know, the best selling game of all times.

 

_{* Yes I know there are massively populated Minecraft servers in which you play with randos, I used to manage one, but that's not the most popular multiplayer gamemode. Private, small, servers and shared saves between friends are (Otherwise the main paid multiplayer mode wouldn't be Realms, which is exactly that, small private servers for friends).}

[BeastHunter]

I have installed and used the multiplayer mod for KSP but I find that more often than not I play single player. The addition of colonies may change this, but I think it’s safe to say multiplayer isn’t a huge concern.

[cocoscacao]

The only MP games I've ever played were (and are) Counter-Strike, and Age of Empires 2... Mostly with the people I know. That pretty much sums it up for me.

[pandaman]

As much as it's 'not my thing' I do think Multiplayer is a worthwhile feature. I might play MP a bit with my kids (they got ne into KSP originally), but not a great deal

MP will, I think, encourage some to try it that may be reluctant.  A friend that plays can guide and assist  with the 'learning curve' without sitting over their shoulder.

 

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

I would take KSP2 fully featured without multiplayer any day, vs KSP2 with multiplayer and less features or simpler features. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[shdwlrd]

3 hours ago, Master39 said:

The more multiplayer topics I read on this forum the sadder I get for the kind of experiences that must have traumatized the KSP community to get to this level of apprehension towards multiplayer

As you know, most multiplayer communities are rife with toxic players, cheaters, and just plain the ugly side of human behavior. Then there are the kicks and/or bans for breaking stupid crap "community" rules. (Rocket League head-on deadlock for example) or just not being good enough or small mistakes. That's what most people think about when thinking about multiplayer and don't want to deal with it. (Most fps, mmo games)

Then of course, there's a ton of people who don't like playing with randos. That will also kill the want for multiplayer for people who are the only person in their group of friends that plays the game. 

My personal reasons for disliking public multiplayer is I can't stand the toxic behavior and language. With my friends, I'm not chatty and usually doing my own thing. So why play multiplayer?

[Dantheollie]

I was looking forward to multiplayer because, in my opinion, it can make the game experience more meaningful

In singleplayer, you are in full control of your experience. Unless you intentionally handicap yourself, you will only be as limited as your skill. You have an entire sandbox to play with, you can revert mistakes, and every accomplishment is solely yours.

However, in a multiplayer setting you are no longer in control of the world. Now you have to decide whether to compete, collaborate, or relegate yourself (in regards to others). Your decisions will impact other players! Will you going to the Mun first mean that Billy will decide to make the first Minmus landing instead? Will you invest the time to devise a system to send resources to your friend's colonies even if it means you'll lose precious time in the Space-race? How would it feel to be the first in the server to accomplish something impressive and have others watch it in real-time?

I feel people are missing the bigger picture here. Multiplayer KSP won't just be singleplayer but with griefing and a toxic voice-chat. Depending on what you decide to do in multiplayer (and who you decide to play it with) KSP multiplayer will be a different experience to singleplayer.

There may be stakes-  artificial stakes-  and tension. There may be pressure... and there may be potential for a more meaningful interpersonal experience

Edited April 14, 2023 by Dantheollie

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

As you know, most multiplayer communities are rife with toxic players, cheaters, and just plain the ugly side of human behavior. Then there are the kicks and/or bans for breaking stupid crap "community" rules. (Rocket League head-on deadlock for example) or just not being good enough or small mistakes. That's what most people think about when thinking about multiplayer and don't want to deal with it. (Most fps, mmo games)

Then of course, there's a ton of people who don't like playing with randos. That will also kill the want for multiplayer for people who are the only person in their group of friends that plays the game. 

My personal reasons for disliking public multiplayer is I can't stand the toxic behavior and language. With my friends, I'm not chatty and usually doing my own thing. So why play multiplayer?

In case you missed it:

4 hours ago, Master39 said:

When "Multiplayer" became a term uniquely limited to MMOs or games with matchmaking and random people?

It's not like "normal" multiplayer games are unpopular or niche, what you describe is exactly how the multiplayer for Minecraft mostly* works, you know, the best selling game of all times.

 

_{* Yes I know there are massively populated Minecraft servers in which you play with randos, I used to manage one, but that's not the most popular multiplayer gamemode. Private, small, servers and shared saves between friends are (Otherwise the main paid multiplayer mode wouldn't be Realms, which is exactly that, small private servers for friends)}

KSP is not going to be a multiplayer game like the ones you have been traumatized from, so why even worry? It's the term itself? Would it be better if we called it a "coop" game instead?

BTW What you describe applies to most of the internet, and by most standards the rules of this forum are quite draconian (Not that I disagree with them).

[Observe]

There are no options in this poll for "I'm not interested in multiplayer". The closest is option #1, but I didn't select that, because I'm not interested in multiplayer and I don't intend to "check it out".

Edited April 14, 2023 by Observe

[Ferio]

5 hours ago, Master39 said:

That's just a description of how multiplayer works in probably half of the games out there.

When "Multiplayer" became a term uniquely limited to MMOs or games with matchmaking and random people?

It's not like "normal" multiplayer games are unpopular or niche, what you describe is exactly how the multiplayer for Minecraft mostly* works, you know, the best selling game of all times.

 

_{* Yes I know there are massively populated Minecraft servers in which you play with randos, I used to manage one, but that's not the most popular multiplayer gamemode. Private, small, servers and shared saves between friends are (Otherwise the main paid multiplayer mode wouldn't be Realms, which is exactly that, small private servers for friends).}

Yes, but I did notice that quite a lot of people still have a misunderstanding with indeed MMO. Hopefully we soon know more

[Alexoff]

It would be interesting to watch multiplayer game, however
1 - it seems it will be mostly single player, where at some point the results of the players will be compared
2 - 1v1 type games are actually very nerve-wracking. When you lose to the same person multiple times, it puts too much pressure. And if there are many players, then no one will notice the loss of one. Therefore, for example, multiplayer strategies are only suitable for a small number of professional nerds. That is why they are not popular. But games with crowds of players, well, you know ...

[asmi]

One obvious problem with multiplayer in such long game I see is that it will be very difficult to coordinate your friends to actually play for any prolonged amount of time, because we all have our lives, families, kids, etc. I had no end of coop game sessions in, say Supreme Commander, which were cut short because something came up for one of us and we had to either continue without him, or abandon session alltogether. Infact I seem to recall that only about 30% of your game sessions were ever played to conclusion. And that is the game with an average session duration of perhaps 1.5-2 hrs. In KSP1, when I was yonger and had more free time on my hands then I knew what to do with, I used to have 6+ hrs long sessions, but now there is absolutely no way I can ever organize anything even remotely as long as that, especially in a sandbox when you typically don't have a set end goal you need to reach in order to "win" and conclude the session.

With that said, the selfish part of me would rather see some other features implemented instead of MP, but since other people seems to want it, I'm OK with it being a thing, as long as it doesn't substantially limit features I do want to see in game.

Edited April 14, 2023 by asmi

[shdwlrd]

2 hours ago, Master39 said:

In case you missed it:

KSP is not going to be a multiplayer game like the ones you have been traumatized from, so why even worry? It's the term itself? Would it be better if we called it a "coop" game instead?

BTW What you describe applies to most of the internet, and by most standards the rules of this forum are quite draconian (Not that I disagree with them).

Nah, I didn't miss it. It really seems like a lot of KSP players will have a tough time with multiplayer whether it's lack of interest with their group of friends or they don't want to cat herd rando players. (Despite the general negativity of most multiplayer games, I really don't see that being a serious problem with KSP. It will happen, but not to the level of shooter part 385.)

The big thing with KSP that doesn't apply to Minecraft or Space Engineers is you can't collaborate/assist while designing and building. That's a single player thing with KSP. You can fly with each other, but if you need to design a new craft, you're better off going to single player because there's no chance of interacting with anyone during the designing phase of KSP. (That probably will change with colonies, but for now it's moot.)

Yes I agree, most of the internet needs a good amount of bleach to remove the funk. The reason I hang around this forum is because of the excellent work the moderation team does. 

[Scarecrow71]

54 minutes ago, shdwlrd said:

cat herd rando players

I'd like to offer a couple of opinions strictly to this point here.

First, the community here is pretty tight-knit and all.  Yes, there are people that don't agree here, and arguments break out and such.  But I'm pretty confident that people won't have to, for the most part, deal with random spammers or children in their multi-player games.  Like, I envision people being able to coordinate joining up in the same game so that people can game with their forum "friends" and get along and have fun and such.

Secondly, I'm also pretty sure that there is a large enough contingent of players such as myself that don't like having to herd internet randos that might get invites to games from people we know and are comfortable with here on the forums.  It's not necessarily that we would accept such invites, but knowing that some people out there are aware of our fear and willing to help us become better players in MP is a nice thought.

With that said, it is still that fear of having to deal with random internet peeps who prefer to go PvP instead of collaborating on having a good time that will keep me from participating.  I'm not saying it's out of the question for me to give it a shot.  But I really don't like MP, especially if I'm in the sector of the galaxy where I feel like everyone else got a bonus and is moving into the Iron Age and I'm stuck over here in the desert barely surviving and trying to create tools (for those of you familiar with Civilization).

[thewhitemetroid]

I have zero interest in MP. Hopefully there will be no instances of content or opportunities lost due to not participating in MP like many other games do. If so I would be extremely disappointed.

Edited April 14, 2023 by thewhitemetroid

[Superfluous J]

If there was an option above the top one of "never ever not even a chance" I'd have picked that.