Multiplayer or resources ?

[RTS321]

Without a doubt resources. I have used and still enjoy the Kethane mod, I would love anything that expands the game in this direction. I can only agree with others who have said that complexity is a major part of what makes the game fun, and am therefore very disappointed at the news that it (probably) wont happen. I just don't see the appeal of multiplayer in the context of this game, unless the developers think of some amazing features that can only be achieved through multiplayer (and surpass the problems that come with it), it will become a small part of the game that people will try, and become bored with very quickly.

[magico13]

I had to go with multiplayer. When I first got KSP I was so excited and I thought instantly that it would be so much fun to build a station with my friends in orbit and explore together. Having races to the Mun or other planets, building bases together, stuff like that. Mind you, I had these thoughts before I had really gotten into space and needed time warp, so that thought hadn't occurred to me. While I would love to have resources, I'm content with what I'm given by the wonderful modding community that KSP has. The fact that there's multiplayer as a mod, without access to the underlying game structure, is amazing to me, so I can only imagine how much better it will be when the people with the source code take over. Resources can come afterward, and I hope they're not as complicated as they originally were going to be. If I have to send out a bunch of massive ships to refuel one ship, I may as well just send more fuel.

Before either of those I'd like to see better aerodynamics and reentry heating. With life support coming after resources. But I'm pretty happy with multiplayer.

[ddavis425]

Not in this case. It's like asking the question: "When you die do you what it to be by: A. Gun shot in the face? B. Dogs eating you to death?" The only conclusions you gain from that are that the majority of people answering want to die in one of those ways. It in no way reflects how the larger population of people want to die. This poll is the same type of poll.

Except that your example doesn't fit with what this thread is about. Squad dumped resources to take on multiplayer, therefore it is completely logical to make a poll with resources and multiplayer as the only two answers. Other options would not make any sense in the situation that is happening with Squad's decision. "Squad is developing multiplayer instead of resources, how do you feel about that?" "I want life support!"

[tntristan12]

Posted this on a different thread but it's just as relevant here:

Well well well. I go away from the forums for a month or two and when I come back there's a brand new topic that everybody is up in arms about. It certainly seems like Squad has kicked a hornet's nest with this one, but before I give my opinion I'd like to clarify that I haven't seen all of the Kerbalcon footage, and so probably missed the comment(s) that has(have) so incensed everyone. All of the input I have to provide on the matter comes from information I've gathered through other posts around the forums, so there's that. If somebody could tell me what exactly was said, well I'd appreciate that!

Anyway, here we go...

Resources should most definitely be an integral part of the core game. I think Squad knows that some level of resource gathering would enhance the core gameplay's richness and provide more incentive for the exploration which is essentially the *entire* point of the game. That said, I think what is in question here is the extent to which resource gathering needs to be implemented. The resource chart provided by Squad is certainly complicated and could probably be simplified significantly without impacting the learning curve too hard. The main argument around here seems to be "it's too complicated so new players wouldn't be able to figure it out and would probably give up playing," to which I say "there is nothing in the proposed mechanic that would explicitly require new players to learn and use this mechanic, making it completely optional." Also, let us not forget that KSP is and always has been a game about space program management, which in itself requires a base level of ingenuity and wit. If somebody is able to learn and master all other mechanics in the game then I see no reason why resource management would be anything special.

I have also heard rumor that multiplayer has been officially announced. Again I did not hear this get said during Kerbalcon so perhaps somebody could enlighten me, but if this is indeed the case then I feel it is a gross misapplication of resources available to Squad. The formal stance has always been to provide an outstanding standalone single player experience to the player, wherein they could play around in a consequence-free sandbox mode or try their hand at a deeper and more rewarding career mode. Adding a third mode specifically for multiplayer seems extraneous, and in my opinion does not provide anything to the core experience unlike resource management.

In short, I sincerely hope I am missing something, because if the new stance is "resources no, multiplayer yes" then I am none too pleased with the development path KSP seems to be taking.

[steveman0]

I choose resources because even as fun as it is to build rockets and go to various places there isn't a reason beyond saying that you did it. I've been to the Mun and Minmus but I don't see a lot to motivate me to go farther. I need a bigger rocket and a slightly different landing configuration but otherwise most planets are the same. Launch, transition, capture, circularize, land, return. The resource adds so much in terms of base building, satellite senors for resource detection, supply chains, orbital refineries, and probably a lot more. It opens up many new routes to space travel as well as colonization. It brings variety to rocket and mission design. It gives purpose to rovers and other specialized vehicles that don't really serve an in game purpose.

I want to do more in KSP but it is lacking those sorts of grand goals to really make it worth the effort. I want the space station I built to be a major practical addition to my space program not just a pretty sight in the sky.

[FatboyTim]

Resources without a doubt.

Personally, I couldn't care less about multiplayer. KSP is far more interesting to me as a single-player game.

What I also can't understand is how multiplayer will possibly be properly compatible with mods. Will there be mod-requirements to join MP servers? ex. "You must have mods X, Y and Z installed to join this server." Or will all MP servers be automatically set to vanilla-only? Sounds dull either way.

[Epthelyn]

Not in this case. It's like asking the question: "When you die do you what it to be by: A. Gun shot in the face? B. Dogs eating you to death?" The only conclusions you gain from that are that the majority of people answering want to die in one of those ways. It in no way reflects how the larger population of people want to die. This poll is the same type of poll.

If the thread asked "What update would you most like to see implemented within KSP?" and gave you those two options with an open question then you would be correct. However, the thread is asking specifically about 2 things, not every possible update.

There's no "neither" option because it's an either/or question, not something you can't have preference about; you'll either prefer one or the other, even if you hate them both and would rather Squad add something else.

[Krotine]

I vote for multiplayer simply because all my friends play it and I think it'd be amazing to travel with them, meet up, and explode together. What we do now is stream the game and we watch each other play and have space races, ya know, build a rocket and then fly it to which ever planet/moon we decide on. I've landed on Every planet and almost every moon. So no resources for me! =P That is my input.

[Eric S]

How so? There are almost 6000 active members. Only about 250 bothered to answer the poll which is a tiny minority of the whole. Of those 250 the majority want resources. I stand by my statement. Besides the poll is invalid with only two questions.

It's referred to as self-selection bias. If the 250 answers came from a random sampling of the KSP players, you could do some math to estimate the statistical relevance. In this case, on top of that you'd have to factor in:

1) The effect of having the poll in the forum, since I'm betting that most people that play KSP aren't even members of the forums (a safe bet, as it's been true for almost every game that both announced player numbers and you could figure out how many people were involved in the forums). The kind of player that won't sign up for the forum isn't the kind of player that would, but just more quiet. The forum residents tend to be your more hardcore, or at least dedicated, players, and that is no small factor.

2) The effect of people not voting and why. In this case, it's possible (but unlikely) that the real answer is that 95% of the forum population doesn't care about either feature enough to vote in a poll on it.

[FITorion]

people keep saying multiplayer would make squad money... how?

The only way I can think of is a subscription based squad managed server set up. This is the exact opposite of the type of multiplayer I would want.

[maxpower]

I bought KSP with the understanding that it would never be a multiplayer game. While I might use such a feature, and don't really have any issue with it being added once the core game is finished, I want SQUAD to finish the game I actually bought first. For as much fun as I have in KSP, there is a serious lack of things to do in the game aside from launching rockets. KSP needs to give players a reason to actually launch rockets, a reason to go to certain places in the solar system, and something to do when you actually get there. The science system is watered down and boring, and it doesn't sound like the changes coming in .23 are going to change that. Recourse gathering and processing would change that, and it should be a primary focus.

As for it being "too complicated" for the average player.... the average player will never go anywhere in KSP anyway. You need a basic understanding of rocket science to actually do anything with the base game beyond blowing up and crashing rockets. Once you have that and are able to get into space, I don't see how a one page resource tree is beyond your understanding. I mean with a complicated base game, additional features can't be tailored to the most simple minded of the community or the game is doomed.

[sal_vager]

people keep saying multiplayer would make squad money... how?.

By attracting people who don't buy single player games, but then if they are into space games and realistic(ish) physics they'd likely try KSP anyway.

Squad arent doing multiplayer for sales, they are doing it because it is now looking feasible, they've wanted to do it in the past and they know the community has asked for it.

[Torham234]

How so? There are almost 6000 active members. Only about 250 bothered to answer the poll which is a tiny minority of the whole. Of those 250 the majority want resources. I stand by my statement. Besides the poll is invalid with only two questions.

What percentage of voting population do you think bothers to vote in general/local elections? People rarely bother even if the matter is directly affecting everything around them like government or taxes. Most voting pools rely on extrapolation, medians and averages. In this case you could conclude that the average of forum users have very strong preference for resources. The lack of any other options is barely relevant. Its an either or question, most people have coherent enough opinion of KSP to prefer one over another.

[maxpower]

By attracting people who don't buy single player games, but then if they are into space games and realistic(ish) physics they'd likely try KSP anyway.

Squad arent doing multiplayer for sales, they are doing it because it is now looking feasible, they've wanted to do it in the past and they know the community has asked for it.

The reality of it is there are very very few people out there who only buy online space games with realistic physics. You're "online only" crowd tends to be restricted to shooters... not space sims. In fact, Id be willing to bet you could count on one hand the amount of people who have passed up KSP because it wasn't MP.

I'd also point out that while multiplayer has always been a requested feature, its not a feature that's ever caused an uproar like we are seeing over the lack of resources. If its all about what the community is asking for, I think SQUAD needs to take a good hard look around before they make their next move.

[Bigcheecho]

The reality of it is there are very very few people out there who only buy online space games with realistic physics. You're "online only" crowd tends to be restricted to shooters... not space sims. In fact, Id be willing to bet you could count on one hand the amount of people who have passed up KSP because it wasn't MP.

I'd also point out that while multiplayer has always been a requested feature, its not a feature that's ever caused an uproar like we are seeing over the lack of resources. If its all about what the community is asking for, I think SQUAD needs to take a good hard look around before they make their next move.

Don't be too risky. I'll bet you could count those people without taking someone else's shoes off, as it is a less risky move.

[Volodyuka]

well, i say resources, and in the complicated way, to make mining operations challenging.

now you have kethane, it is just one resource, from which you can make all the types of propellants, and it's boring, you just land extractor, processing unit and lander, which can take as more propellants in orbit as possible. but if you has multiple resources, and multiple refinery solutions (and maybe a 3d-printer for parts, buildings for bases and even rockets) you have not exactly trivial challenge, to mine, gather in one place, refine and store, and if it will bound by contract - to make all that as cost effective as you can make it.

and that for multiplayer. well i played minecraft, this game 'bout creativity as much as KSP is, and one of the most favorite things to do for most of the players? exactly - to grief others creations. and i don't really want this in KSP, especially taking the fact, that KSP is really slow-paced game, you need many time to plant a flag on different planet, to build station in orbit, to build a base, and when look at some *bad man* destroying it.

also i'd like the fact that KSP is single player game.

[Eadrom]

I voted resources.

I would really dig both. I just want resources to be completed first. With resources, people can set up off kerbin infrastructure and with the ability to use those resources, set up colonies and off-world shipyards. Then add in multiplayer and allow people to build colonies and fuel depots and shipyards and mining operations and so on together.

I'd like to see something kinda like the following for next year:

0.24 Money in career and finish adding biomes to planets and moons

0.25 Resources - collection and per ship utilization (similar to how Kethane works, you can mine stuff to make fuel)

0.26 Resources - broad utilization: ability to construct vessels offworld, ship ore back to Kerbin and sell it for money, etc

0.27 Final mechanics implementation - primarily re-entry heat and life support; waste heat management and remote tech style comm systems would be nice (maybe make these optional via settings toggle so that beginners don't have all kinds difficulty up front)

0.28 Multiplayer

Edited December 15, 2013 by Eadrom

[steveman0]

As for it being "too complicated" for the average player.... the average player will never go anywhere in KSP anyway. You need a basic understanding of rocket science to actually do anything with the base game beyond blowing up and crashing rockets.

This is basically how I see it. Any resource system is bound to be no more complicated than what it takes to utilize the system in the first place. If you can get to the resources then you clearly shouldn't have a problem of understanding of even a multi-tier refinement process let alone something really basic like a Kethane approach. Honestly their approach to multiplayer control of individual crafts is probably more complex in practice than a basic resource system in terms of a players understanding.

[JeffreyCor]

Resources. I don't have any interest in MP and resources give a new depth a feel with additional options to the game rather than just bringing everything up from your home planet.

[Ernest3.14]

Resources. Everything that can be said about its importance has already been said.

[Aragosnat]

Resources: Mainly for the way it will likely change the way we build our crafts as well as give those planets more worth then a way to expand out tech tree.

Not against MP. But, it is not something I would be using even if they had said we could do so well before I bought this game. As like others have mentioned it will eat up developement time of the existing features they have started.

[SlinkyBlue]

I think the poll speaks for itself. Get in here, Squad.

[Adslegend]

Without a doubt I choose resources. Resources would add much more depth to the game. Multiplayer on the other hand changes very little. Right now it would add very little to the game. Without resources there'd be no reason to interact with other players.

[Thornn]

Added my vote for resources. Extremely disappointed KSP has abandoned this.

[DeeplyLovesCoffee]

Hi Guys,

For me resources is much more of a draw than enjoying a multi-player game. I also play WoW and get all the multi-player fix I need from there. But having a reason and a way to look for something on other worlds seems really cool. As a side note, and I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I'd also really be interested in being able to build large complex space/moon/Duna stations without having huge amounts of video lag. So, enhancements = really good, but optimizing = really good too!