Multiplayer or resources ?

[OneRedBlock]

What is this tactical ICBM garbage? I'm gone from forums for few weeks and now we are making DEFCON????????

You must be wanting some different game.

If there was a multiplayer at all I thought it was supposed to be added after release.

No, I'm quite satisfied with KSP. It's just that there's no way anyone would play multiplayer without ramming their friend's ship atleast once. It was a joke, although I guess it was too complex for you.

[Scotius]

Hey, i've rammed my own ships and stations enough times as it is. I don't need someone else to do it too

[Ski]

No, I'm quite satisfied with KSP. It's just that there's no way anyone would play multiplayer without ramming their friend's ship atleast once. It was a joke, although I guess it was too complex for you.

Really? You are going to offend me even though sarcasm is not well readable on forums? Apparently many people want want gameplay like that since multi is a GO and resources are not, so my surprised reaction is rather justified after long time of absence but it must be too hard to understand for you.

[Vanamonde]

Wow, everybody is so angry today. Please confine the discussion to the thread topic, and refrain from attacking each other.

[EdCase]

I am sick of multiplayer games.

I just opened up my steam library and sorted by date. Of the last twenty games I played, seventeen of those have multiplayer. Almost ALL of them have a sufferable single-player experience. I don't want to play with friends, I don't WANT to meet new people, I want to sit down, play a game, and not have to worry about the other people playing in the same world. When I multiplayer, especially in the 'start a server and play snadbox with others,' it typically ends up with me playing alongside others, rather than with them.

It makes. Games. Weaker. It's the plague along with microtransactions and app-speak that's infected gaming, trying to scrabble for every scrap of the market that they can. Make your game good, and people will come. Do this sort of stuff, and you begin to walk the road to where your game is the same generic boatload of junk that I can get anywhere.

Please don't do that.

With the caveat that my steam library doesn't contain that many multiplayer games....I agree with this statement totally.

[bsalis]

I'm not that fussed about either. However, given the choice, I choose Multiplayer.

If I wanted to do Mining, I'd go play a game about mining.

[SyberSmoke]

Resources, but it can not be about just going to a place and mining it dry for whatever is needed. The reason I think resources is because it needs to be about the Kerbals over anything else. Getting Kerbals to a planet, transporting more kerbals to a planet. Food, water, air, construction and science. Yes resources can be about ores and gas's, and such...but when I think resources for a game like this I think domes growing food, purifying water, finding ice, and so on.

As for multiplayer...this sounds like a nightmare to me. Not just in terms of making it work right but also the differences in computer power and the possible part counts that could ensue.

[macegee]

I want resources. Multiplayer would be overly complicated and just not fun.

[OtherDalfite]

I'm not that fussed about either. However, given the choice, I choose Multiplayer.

If I wanted to do Mining, I'd go play a game about mining.

I ask you this as a question, and not to be hostile in any way.

What would you do in multiplayer that cannot already be done in singleplayer? Again, I ask this simply as a question because I respect you, and you make quality posts.

[Geoff-AU]

No, I'm quite satisfied with KSP. It's just that there's no way anyone would play multiplayer without ramming their friend's ship atleast once. It was a joke, although I guess it was too complex for you.

I agree.. I am happy with KSP as a single player and would prefer resources. If I ever played multiplayer I would just end up sabotaging everyone else's efforts via deliberate Kessler syndrome. muhahahahaha!

I think multiplayer (unless it's forced co-op) would detract from the positive self-learning that KSP currently encourages.

[Savage117]

I didn't read all your responses, it's too late in the morning, but just from the poll view I see resources has a lot more votes than I expected, I expected it to be a little more neck and neck.

I decided on multiplayer for my choice and many of you will find my reasons unpopular, but I'm trying to think of the future of the game not the now and what I want now.

I chose multiplayer because it is more likely to make Squad money, resources are great and I want them too, but the driving force behind any company is money, if Squad runs out of money the game development stops and we are left with an unfinished game, still a good unfinished game though. Resources will likely only make the long time players and current owners of the game happy, but they have already bought the game, Squad already has that money, and unless those owners buy another copy only a small amount of new money will be coming in.

But add multiplayer and you open your game to a larger audience, and the chance current owners will buy another copy or two for friends, and therefor more income, from a business standpoint its a good move, from a popularity standpoint not so good. But more money does mean more features or more polished game play, if it goes well we could possibly get both, no one knows yet.

I personally didn't buy this game for what it's going to become or what was promised, I bought it for what it is now and have the added bonus of having features added almost every patch, it's like im getting free DLC packs. I only paid $14 USD and have gotten at least $50 worth of entertainment out of it so far and it's still in alpha, that is an awesome deal if you ask me.

That's my ten cents on this whole Multiplayer vs Resources thing.

[Eric S]

I'm not exactly sure what to say on this subject.

Multiplayer: Most of my friends that would enjoy KSP don't have the time for it. Only one of them really plays it, and I really can't think of too many missions we'd do together, we're a bit on different playing fields when it comes to skill level. I'd love to have him ride along on a few missions to show him how to do things, but I can do that just by setting up some live streaming software. To be honest, I'd be way to picky about playstyles when looking to play with people I don't know. To me, the multiplayer announcement mostly means that the devs will have less time to work on features I do care about.

Resources: I loved the idea of resources early on. I used the Kethane Mod all the time, had major refueling stations in LKO, Munar, and Minmus orbits. By the time 0.19 rolled around, I was just using it for self-refueling transfer stages, and while I've had it installed, I don't remember actually using it since 0.20. Yes, it let me do things in new and different ways, but like Harvester said, it didn't happen in a FUN way. When the new shiny wore off, I stopped using it. Anyone that knows how I play games would be shocked to hear it, because I'm usually all about the infrastructure, the economy, etc.

I might use multiplayer, I would use resources, but frankly, I'm not going to not enjoy the game if I don't have resources.

[SpaceSphereOfDeath]

Resorces, for one reason: gameplay should come before commodities such as multiplayer

[OtherDalfite]

I didn't read all your responses, it's too late in the morning, but just from the poll view I see resources has a lot more votes than I expected, I expected it to be a little more neck and neck.

I decided on multiplayer for my choice and many of you will find my reasons unpopular, but I'm trying to think of the future of the game not the now and what I want now.

I chose multiplayer because it is more likely to make Squad money, resources are great and I want them too, but the driving force behind any company is money, if Squad runs out of money the game development stops and we are left with an unfinished game, still a good unfinished game though. Resources will likely only make the long time players and current owners of the game happy, but they have already bought the game, Squad already has that money, and unless those owners buy another copy only a small amount of new money will be coming in.

But add multiplayer and you open your game to a larger audience, and the chance current owners will buy another copy or two for friends, and therefor more income, from a business standpoint its a good move, from a popularity standpoint not so good. But more money does mean more features or more polished game play, if it goes well we could possibly get both, no one knows yet.

I personally didn't buy this game for what it's going to become or what was promised, I bought it for what it is now and have the added bonus of having features added almost every patch, it's like im getting free DLC packs. I only paid $14 USD and have gotten at least $50 worth of entertainment out of it so far and it's still in alpha, that is an awesome deal if you ask me.

That's my ten cents on this whole Multiplayer vs Resources thing.

I'll tell you this. SQUAD struck a goldmine with KSP, and are not running out of money for quite a long time.

[Spatzimaus]

Resources will change the way the game is played, and will require alterations to all of our designs. Multiplayer, for most of us, won't do much. So to me, it's clear which I'm looking forward to.

[Alephzorg]

After watching the "closing ceremonies" again, it sounds like they aren't giving up completely on the resources idea but just on their initial plans on how to do it.

Looking at the charts they released a while ago, I agree that it looked way too complex to be fun to play with. And I'm glad they've decided to go back to the drawing board to get it right.

But with that said, I'd still rather have them work on the resources system as a priority over the multiplayer option. With their time and energy focused on developing a MP option, we won't see stock resources until the game is almost finished.

And to me (just an opinion), it would be more fun to play with someone else on expanding a base or gathering the resources to build an off-world VAB than to fly a mission. It supposes having resources before MP.

[bsalis]

What would you do in multiplayer that cannot already be done in singleplayer? Again, I ask this simply as a question because I respect you, and you make quality posts.

Thanks for the compliment. Which is why i'll spend a bit of time to put down my thoughts here in a long post - seems a good place as any. For starters, to reiterate, i'm not that fussed about either feature. IMO both should be done as an expansion pack.

On Multiplayer

A big part of the game as it currently stands, is how it is sandboxed and provides the player with many tools. It's sort of light on actual content. It is really the players that generate the content. By building crafts and setting themselves missions and challenges.

Another aspect is that it is more social than people think. People share crafts, and post pictures and stories of their missions and accomplishments. The "Gameplay Questions and Tutorials" section is filled with shared knowledge and collaborative design efforts.

I expect Multiplayer to unlock even more player generated content and activities. There will be things people start doing in both co-op and competitive styles of play that we do not currently even anticipate. However, some things that I can think of that we will see are...

* Collective projects to build space stations and bases, possibly with division of labour to match skillset of players (builders vs pilots).

* Competitive Races, Challenges and other Mini-games. Expect all sorts of these, of building/piloting/both/other nature. (Robot Wars with kOS would be pretty neat IMO).

* Co-op missions, such as Mun return, Apollo style. With someone as Mission Control seeing map view and other data, and a pilot in the capsule with IVA only.

* All that stuff about sharing crafts and collaborative design. That can actually happen in-game, in real time. Where you build and fly crafts of others and chat about it right there. (like, i'll be able to tell Vanamonde in person that his latest SSTO Spaceplane sucks like the last one)

* Then there's the Mods! A whole slew of new multiplayer mods. Many of which would assist/lock-in play types listed above, such as a Mission Control mod.

On Resources

The feeling I get from many on Resources is that it provides purpose to actually going somewhere. To paraphrase what someone else said: "I've landed - now what?". Well, my answer to that is "Science". I think the scope of Science can, and should, be expanded in both how it is gathered and used. Such that it would be far more involved, interactive and satisfying than Resources could ever be. Just think of this could-be scenario on gathering science...

You land on the Mun and hop out on EVA. You have a Geiger counter in hand, and a rover. You drive around listening to the ticks to locate some very radioactive rocks to collect. You bring them back to the science lab. Then you use a Gamma-Ray Spectrometer to do the analysis which works like a mini-game, where you have to pick the radioactive nuclides yourself. Then you transmit to Kerbin and get more science yield for higher radioactive samples and better analysis. (in multiplayer, your friend could ride shotgun and do the analysis since you keep botching it).

As for how science is used, i think the tech tree should just be one aspect. Science should be the lifeblood of your Space Agency in Career mode. The source of both money and reputation. When tackling Career mode and planning missions, you need to think of science payoffs, costs, inventory, risks, and basically how to stay in business and not go broke. Those science labs don't just fall off trees you know.

Edited December 15, 2013 by bsalis

[ComradeGoat]

I've been avoiding Kethane because I've wanted to build distant outposts using an "official" resource system, where I can build a network of bases in the Joolian system without having to ship all the fuel from Kerbin. That it's probably not coming is really disappointing. ISTM that the potential offered by gas planet systems is only fully unlock able by resource mining, otherwise it's too logistically tedious to establish much of a presence there. This will apply doubly so when a second gas planet is added. Resources gave the prospect of setting up deep space colonies semi-independently of Kerbin.

[Madrias]

I'd rather have them set aside both MP and Resources for a little while and stomp out as many bugs as they can before adding new ones that will inevitably occur with both Multiplayer and Resources. Just my opinion on things.

[Tw1]

I expect Multiplayer to unlock even more player generated content and activities. There will be things people start doing in both co-op and competitive styles of play that we do not currently even anticipate. However, some things that I can think of that we will see are...

This is such a good point. I've been quite surprised at the negative/indifferent reactions to multiplayer. I look forward to races, visits to the stations of others, etc.

The feeling I get from many on Resources is that it provides purpose to actually going somewhere. To paraphrase what someone else said: "I've landed - now what?". Well, my answer to that is "Science". I think the scope of Science can, and should, be expanded in both how it is gathered and used. Such that it would be far more involved, interactive and satisfying than Resources could ever be. Just think of this could-be scenario on gathering science...

.

So much this. That's exactly the sort of thing I hope science evolves into. I want to have my little guys trekking across Duna, drilling every so often to take a look at the mineral composition, then moving a few hundred meters and drilling again, to look for small changes.

I want to take my pool monitoring set, universal indicator and all that, and squirt a bit into Eve's ocean a safely contained puddle on Eve, just to see what happens.

Science gameplay could be so much more fun than it is now.

[Danish_Savage]

I personally look(ed) forward to resources the most.

[SkyHook]

Maybe saying i'll quit without resources is a little extreme, but 700 or so hours of roleplay is enough for me. I wanna start actually DOING what I pretend to do on my bases, space stations, and interplanetary journeys. I don't think that's anything absurd to ask.

[FlamedSteak]

I'm disappointed, mostly because I hate seeing features cut for something as banal as multiplayer. It's such a "me too" feature and I honestly don't see it being a terribly interesting asset to have in ksp. Without time skip, KSP is just a whole lot of finger twiddling.

[vexx32]

No one said you had to sacrifice timewarp for multiplayer. Besides, chances are that whatever vision you have for how much KSP is going to fail due to the lack of the resources system or the inclusion of multiplayer... well, to be honest, I'd say the odds are quite decidedly weighing against either of these things actually making anything worse. They cut resources because the way it was going wasn't going to work, in their eyes. By the same token, if multiplayer was going to be a worthless waste of time, they won't go through with it. The developers here aren't machines. The have judgement. And yes, by the same token, they make mistakes, just like everyone else. That doesn't mean they can't fix their mistakes, though... but do also remember that what some of us may see as a mistake (most prominently here being scrapping the resources system) may not turn out to be a mistake after all.

[ComradeGoat]

An overcomplicated resource system that made you *have* to micromanage life support for long missions would probably ruin the game.

One that allowed you to, with some skill, pilot down to a body and mine fuel to sustain those missions - that would enhance the game tremendously, IMO.