soranno Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Then what about someone who is trying to travel to lathe.. does it just sit still in space? While at the same time someone on lathe is waiting for a return window, or a transfer to somewhere else. While someone at Kerbin is waiting for a window to go to moho..These planetary bodies cannot operate independently, and cannot just be cut out of the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flixxbeatz Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) What if, in a large scale multiplayer, each celestial body is its own instance and the game only loads crafts that orbit a certain body once you are in orbit around that body? Kerbol is excepted, only your crafts will be loaded while on its orbit since kerbol orbit usually means long distance travel.This means we can have localized multiplayer with 2-5 people on each planet/moon, where the time warp will be agreed upon. And when you leave the sphere of influence of a body, you are free to timewarp to get to other places as the other players won't be connected. This also means that the state of the whole kerbol system does not necessarily have to be the same for each player, as the only interaction between players happen in the sphere of influence of a single body only. So, as long as player A and B are orbiting Laythe, it does not matter where Laythe is on their system, what matters is only their position relative to Laythe.You know what, I'll come back here later when I can explain this more eloquently.It's still multiplayer, and the devs already said that multiplayer ain't gonna happen - unless they pull off a Mojang.There were numerous threads posted here suggesting multiplayer, with different (and some recycled) ideas each, and all of them were promptly shot down by the community (met with strong opposition, or just people getting fed up by the same thing over and over again) or by the devs themselves. Edited July 13, 2013 by Flixxbeatz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadweasel Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Eh, while it's nice to think about, there are many reasons it's useless to discuss MP in this game:There's always going to be the one troll who figures out how to work HyperEdit's features into the mix, and warps his 1200 part monstrosity into somebody's area just to mess with their play. Script kiddies are bad enough in DayZ; I'd rather not have to deal with the idiots in this game too, thank you very much. It's a lot of fun as it is, openly supporting third-party expansions to the functions and parts. I have too much fun with the mod parts to be forced back to entirely vanilla just for the sake of being "social" (eyeroll) in this game. That's what these forums are for. MP would mean all the mods go out the window to ensure there's a common denominator to be found when connecting multiple players together.What happens in a collaborative build, where players are docking ships together to make a huge station? Who "owns" the assembly? Who gets to pilot it and decide its orientation or destination? What happens when one of the players turns out to be just another entitled XBox brat (you know the kind, don't lie) who flies off the handle and earns a kick or ban from the game? What happens to the parts he/she added to the build? What if their contribution forms the core of the build? Ban and *boom* it's all come apart? The logistics are fearful to think about on that aspect.Adding MP to KSP would almost certainly result in a completely different game, and probably one which would quickly find itself being compared (unfavorably and uncharitably) with Eve Online.No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwenting Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 But,the REAL reason people want it...is to fly little space fighters in space and shooting at eachother.Or, who knows. Maybe flying a pad 1km off the munar surface, and then someone lands on it?Correct, they want it to harass others. If MP were implemented as optional they'd complain it wasn't mandatory... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilotionCR2 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I think the MP could be added as indirect multiplayer where you could play with your friend but indirectly.I mean-you would build a space station-you close the game-your friend's client downloads your save file-your friend loads the save-adds a module,does some other stuff (satellite say)-he closes-your client downloads his file and replaces your file with the "new" version-you start the game and you have a new satellite and a new station module! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soranno Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 people trade saves like that already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Jenkens Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 As much as i'd love multiplayer I can't see any feasible way of it being implemented. If something could be figured out that's great but its not too high on my wants list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefTenderloin Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 The reason we can't have one person time warp alone, is that the planets also time warp, and will move out of sync. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haltux Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Okay, Let's say 25 or 30 of us are on a KSP server, playing a multiplayer, persistent world. . .and a couple of you guys have put up nice, habitable stations around kerbin. So, stay with me here, 3 guys are on a station docking/refuelling etc. . .I am on the pad about to launch to said base. What's to say those guys couldn't just play at 1.0 compression, while i jump 4.0 to expedite my journey. Would it have any adverse effects, really? Okay, you couldn't time a rendezvous with another player correctly if one of them time compresses and another doesn't. But places and such should be easy to meet at. . ."Hey phil, meet me at Jool in 20 minutes!"it wouldn't be "realistic", but it would be accessible. You guys got any thoughts or obvious holes in this concept??Sorry but this makes no sense, inconstitant planet position between players being the most obvious problem.There is a nice overview of all the potential approach to multiplayer here:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/35852-MASTER-THREAD-Multiplayer-Ideas-(Check-Here-to-See-if-it-s-Already-Suggested)The best approach to "real" multiplayer would be the "no time warp" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyrunner27 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 The major reason this won't happen is not because of the devs, but instead is because people here won't let discussion happen because of something the devs said in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 The major reason this won't happen is not because of the devs, but instead is because people here won't let discussion happen because of something the devs said in the past.No, it's something the devs said multiple times, repeated multiple times, and explained why they won't add it to the main game multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leax256 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 So, if I understand you correctly, when a player A timewarps for a few days, that players' position won't change on anyone else's screen until player B gets to that date?no, if I launch a ship in 2020 and you are in 2010, my ship will exist in your "time stream" even though you aren't there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Themohawkninja Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 no, if I launch a ship in 2020 and you are in 2010, my ship will exist in your "time stream" even though you aren't there yet.Small problem I see with that. The planets would have moved a great deal in those 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 New part: Flux Capacitor.Power requirement: 1.21 giga-e/m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leax256 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Small problem I see with that. The planets would have moved a great deal in those 10 years.a possible work around is simply sending relative location, coords on ground, orbit info, place the ship as best as it can.perfection wouldn't be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msyblade Posted July 13, 2013 Author Share Posted July 13, 2013 Wow, I'm surprised at how many guys with a dumptruck full of posts on the forum, are like. . .irritated by this subject. Half of these guys are genuinely turning gears in their heads, throwing out ideas. . .And the other half are saying "Arrrrrgh! This AGAIN?! Can we just F%^ng KILL this subject already?" C'mon guys, Let people share ideas you have already hashed over a hundred times. Just because you are sick of talking about it doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the planet needs to "Shut up about it already." Don't open the damn thread just to troll it. If you hate it, pass it by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Wow, I'm surprised at how many guys with a dumptruck full of posts on the forum, are like. . .irritated by this subject. Half of these guys are genuinely turning gears in their heads, throwing out ideas. . .And the other half are saying "Arrrrrgh! This AGAIN?! Can we just F%^ng KILL this subject already?" C'mon guys, Let people share ideas you have already hashed over a hundred times. Just because you are sick of talking about it doesn't necessarily mean the rest of the planet needs to "Shut up about it already." Don't open the damn thread just to troll it. If you hate it, pass it by.This is ironically just as useless to this thread as those who you accuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiftgates24 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 New part: Flux Capacitor.Power requirement: 1.21 giga-e/mFinally, someone with a reasonable answer. Actually, I have a better one. Remove time-warps, I'm sure none of you will mind waiting a few years to get to Jool and back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent30632 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) If time warp was implemented for multiplayer, there would be a lot of things that ruin what you're trying to accomplish. I mean, if you only implemented the system we have already.Let's say there is one guy at Kerbin transferring to Laythe. Then there are 2 guys who want to warp to dock together. It wouldn't be a problem if there was a voting system, but that usually works for 2-6 people. A MASSIVE server wouldn't handle so well. And then you have more problemsPlus, if someone pulls off a Danny2462, the whole server is basically screwed. Also, the launch pad. What if everyone wants to launch a craft? It'll take a line system to do it. Unless you code a system of multiple KSC's. People with lower-end Computers will lag like hell with all the stuff to process.Face it people, as someone said earlier, this game is not made for multiplayer. Suggest one thing, you get more problems.Except for a Flux Capacitor Edited July 13, 2013 by Agent30632 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiftgates24 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Thing is, there wouldn't be a massive server. It'd lag to much. And let's all face it: Multiplayer will most likely NEVER be implemented. A co-op mode is likely though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Thing is, there wouldn't be a massive server. It'd lag to much. And let's all face it: Multiplayer will most likely NEVER be implemented. A co-op mode is likely though.Surely co-op mode is multiplayer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Themohawkninja Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Thing is, there wouldn't be a massive server. It'd lag to much. And let's all face it: Multiplayer will most likely NEVER be implemented. A co-op mode is likely though.That's why it should follow suit with what Mojang AB did, and let you download a server file to turn your computer into a server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiftgates24 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Surely co-op mode is multiplayer?Co-op mode meaning you control the same craft at the same time, each of you having to focus on two different things.That's why it should follow suit with what Mojang AB did, and let you download a server file to turn your computer into a server.What does that have to do with my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Co-op mode meaning you control the same craft at the same time, each of you having to focus on two different things.That sounds interesting, and a more realistic suggestion. That is multiplayer, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Themohawkninja Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 What does that have to do with my post?I read that as "there would be a massive server". Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts