sal_vager

Modpacks, should they be banned?

Mod repacks, time to end it?   104 members have voted

This poll is closed for new votes
  1. 1. Allow mod repacks, or ban them?

    • Allow repacks
      36
    • Ban repacks
      68

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

178 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Whenever someone asks "should we ban X?" my first gut instinct is "no, because that would also inadvertently ban Y and Z." So I voted "Allow repacks." However, I understand the arguments to ban them, and agree with those arguments.

If there was better support in-game for mods (which is crazy to say because modding support is pretty good) then this would not be an issue. A "mod pack" would be nothing more than a list of mods, and the game would make sure they were updated.

Edited by 5thHorseman
clarity
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 3/5/2017 at 3:05 PM, Streetwind said:

{SNIP}

Important, detailed, informative stuff

 :)

 

Sooo, if I understand what you and many other users and modders have expressed so far (please correct me if I am wrong)  that if "Mod Packer A"  posts in Add-on Releases or Add-on Development "Modpack A" and does the following:

1) Posts a description of the repack, it's intent, design/style, and play/style, and any and all changes made to parts/textures/configs etc

2) Posts EXPLICIT instructions on how to install modpack

3) Lists all mods/parts included with licenses or information about specific mods/parts (quoting and paraphrasing directly from one particular modpack) "Parts from 'X' mod with all rights reserved, expressed written permission from "X modder" for components to be distributed with "this mod" *

4) Lists any and all plugins/extra configs/etc that may be needed to make the mod pack work

5) a) Posts exactly how to get support

5) b) Follows up and promptly provides support in modpack thread

If a modpack met those above conditions, would that work within the rules (current KSP forum mod rules or proposed "Modpack rules") or conditions you propose @Streetwind?

 

With respect to the actual treatment of mod packs, I would agree they need to be treated and moderated the same as mods in general.  That way things like GPP, Near Future, USI, etc are already covered and no special exemptions/exceptions need to be added. 

 

* Maybe off topic, but:  

EDIT:

Original statement/question regarding the PM system was removed by myself.  Poor choice of words, and not enough thought or research went into the question.  I apologize for any confusion, inconvenience, or otherwise causing a stir/panic.  I'll endevour to do a bit more research before commenting on some specific issues.

 

 

Edited by smotheredrun
Colossal "Whoops" on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If modpacks get banned, what about the people who wanted modpacks to stay? They could just stop using mods and then what happens next?

Scenarios:

1. KSP is doomed

2. Mods get unpopular and more pirated modpacks get released

3. More monopolies between modders and the players

By banning modpacks, you are essentially making KSP's modding community worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 minutes ago, ForumUser said:

If modpacks get banned, what about the people who wanted modpacks to stay? They could just stop using mods and then what happens next?

Scenarios:

1. KSP is doomed

2. Mods get unpopular and more pirated modpacks get released

3. More monopolies between modders and the players

By banning modpacks, you are essentially making KSP's modding community worse.

Absolutely wrong and fearmongering does not help your argument. Licensing already keeps mod packs from happening for the most part and KSP is still going strong so your suggestion that ksp and its modding community will suffer doesn't make sense 

Edited by Galileo
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod A requires and redistributes v.1 of mod B,
Then mod B becomes updated to v.2 and gets incompatible with A.

The modpack of A( + Bv1) still continues redistributing Bv1.
If the player then replaces B with v2, A gets invalid this user of A(+B).

If A is redistributed alone, without B, the user installs A and then downloads B (already v2).
A gets invealid from the very beginning, unless the user realizes that A requires exactly v.1 of B, and he has to find and download B v.1.

So, the problem of incompatibility stays the same, but most of A users won't get a workable version of A at all.
While with modpaks they get at least the A+B version tested by author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good point, @kerbiloid. But as I understand it, the same thing can be done with a ckan script, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deddly said:

the same thing can be done with a ckan script, right?

1. Which in turn causes problem with CKAN in some known mods. (Can't list them right now by memory, but several well-known.)
2. Which makes CKAN a new Kerbalspaceport. 3...2...1...dev null.
3. Which can cause problems with beta and developers releases yet not ready to publish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Galileo said:

Absolutely wrong and fearmongering does not help your argument. Licensing already keeps mod packs from happening for the most part and KSP is still going strong so your suggestion that ksp and its modding community will suffer doesn't make sense 

What about the 45% of the community that wants modpacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/03/2017 at 1:00 AM, Tex_NL said:

 

Should you ban them? Yes since they do more harm than good.

Can you ban them? I highly doubt it. You can't stop people from pirating software either.

 

Exactly right. There will alway be the odd modpack around even if you ban them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ForumUser said:

What about the 45% of the community that wants modpacks?

Where did you get this number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Where did you get this number?

Poll "Show results"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Poll "Show results"?

42% on a poll answered by 70 people (when we know several millions bought KSP) on a modding subforum, whose question isn't even "do you want modpacks" but "should modpacks be banned from the forums". It's neither a representative nor an accurate result.

 

Anyway, modders provide additional free content to the game: even if it was 99% they would still be right.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gaarst said:

It's neither a representative nor an accurate result.

Would be a 3rd answer: "What is modpack?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

20 hours ago, DStaal said:

Which directly contradicts the portion of your post I quoted.

Yes but in the next paragraph I also said that permission could be granted in mod OPs, so I actually contradicted myself.  Sorry, I did not ultimately mean it to be quite so broad.  Didn't know where I was going when I wrote "ban all modpacks" and didn't revise once I did.  Was good for dramatic effect though.  :)  At any rate...

Quote

Honestly if they just said 'Modpacks are not allowed.' with the implied 'What is a modpack will be decided by the moderators' I'd be fine with it...

I don't think I'd have any quarrel with this.

Mods and modpacks and dependent mods are an exaggerated form of DLL Hell in that the DLL maintainer is the one who gets most of the guff when something goes wrong.  There's not likely to be a simple solution.  At least if stuff is getting inspected by the moderators it'll be an assurance of quality.  (Hey, someone could even come up with a "USDA Inspected"-like stamp to put on modpack OPs!  :D)

 

Quote

This is exactly why I changed my licenses. If a mod author doesn't want modpack redistribution, it is trivially easy to stop it for all versions going forwards. That warm fuzzy feeling of permissive licensing comes with requirements and caveats. Plan what you want people to be able to do with your stuff.   

(Quoting @Nertea but I botched it.)  Yeah you're right, and sadly I am probably going to move to a much stricter licence for any future mods I make (if any... might be moot now as my availability has shifted), but it shouldn't come to that.  Then the mod can't live on as easily when the author goes away, as most eventually do (for both good and bad reasons).

KSP modding, especially creating add-ons, has a high enough barrier to entry as it is.  I've got 25 years of experience of releasing shareware/freeware/OSS and yet I'm still overwhelmed.  Putting that barrier up higher won't help more mods get made.

 

1 hour ago, Shadow Wolf56 said:

Exactly right. There will alway be the odd modpack around even if you ban them

Not on the forums there won't be.

Edited by paulprogart
fix botched quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ForumUser said:

What about the 45% of the community that wants modpacks?

I voted to not ban them but don't necessarily want them. I don't want a very large number of mods, but I'd not want them banned.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial answer is `it depends`. If `modpacks` are a zip file which is a repacked collection of other mods then I would say ban them. If they are something more like Realism Overhaul where a set of mods is referenced in CKAN and the current mods are installed as a bunch then that is something good.

I will assume a `modpack` is just a mod repackaged in a zip file and so I voted to ban.

To my mind exactly this problem is why we have Module Manager which non-destructively does very good things. The solution for modpacks is to not use a ZIP but a CKAN file. Then YouTubers can still say `download this modset` and avoid the obvious problems of outdated mods etc.

If people then want to add a .cfg file, instead of repacking the whole mod they should just supply a `mod` which is just a MM file for the mod installed with CKAN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, John FX said:

My initial answer is `it depends`. If `modpacks` are a zip file which is a repacked collection of other mods then I would say ban them. If they are something more like Realism Overhaul where a set of mods is referenced in CKAN and the current mods are installed as a bunch then that is something good.

I will assume a `modpack` is just a mod repackaged in a zip file and so I voted to ban.

To my mind exactly this problem is why we have Module Manager which non-destructively does very good things. The solution for modpacks is to not use a ZIP but a CKAN file. Then YouTubers can still say `download this modset` and avoid the obvious problems of outdated mods etc.

If people then want to add a .cfg file, instead of repacking the whole mod they should just supply a `mod` which is just a MM file for the mod installed with CKAN.

But there are mods which doesnt allow some other mods downloaded same time. So i need to load some mods one by one.

But there are still some huge mods which takes long time to download.

I support ckan file modpacks, only if it could work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ForumUser said:

What about the 45% of the community that wants modpacks?

That doesn't give you license to disregard the 55% who don't. Never mind that it's rubbish data and not at all representative of the actual user base, just those who happened upon this sorry show. It's a moot point anyway. You've made up your mind what you intend to do, wishes of the content creators and reality in general be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, SolidJuho said:

But there are mods which doesnt allow some other mods downloaded same time. So i need to load some mods one by one.

But there are still some huge mods which takes long time to download.

I support ckan file modpacks, only if it could work.

When testing and debugging, I regularly ask for and get the .ckan file for an install.  In almost all cases, I import that file into ckan and it installs all the mods listed without and problem.

So yes, it does work

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

When testing and debugging, I regularly ask for and get the .ckan file for an install.  In almost all cases, I import that file into ckan and it installs all the mods listed without and problem.

So yes, it does work

I havent got any problem when installing mods from you. That is for sure.

I dont remember what mods doesnt install same time. When i next time come across that kind of situation, i am gonna let you guys know.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not a modder and I didn't know about modpacks until this thread, but if I undestand right the problem could be solved by banning modpakcs as a compressed file containing the mods and, instead, be done providing a link to the autors thread, for exemple:

Spoiler

Modpack thread title: Eyecandy KSP Modpack

Thread content:

This modpack is to make KSP more... [description]

The mods for this pack are: [link to OP of the mods]

The modpack is tested using the versions x, y and z of the mods with KSP versio xyz. If a mod gets updated, please wait until compatibility is verified. If any problem arises, check for help here first.

Thanks for modders A, B and C for creating theses mods!

What do guys think? I only gave a quick read on the thread, since it grown a lot since a last visited it. I've some posts suggesting things more or less a like what a said, but not this way exactly, but sorry if I missed something!

Edited by VaPaL
Grammar
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VaPaL said:

I'm not a modder and I didn't know about modpacks until this thread, but if I undestand right the problem could be solved by banning modpakcs as a compressed file containing the mods and, instead, be done providing a link to the autors thread, for exemple:

  Reveal hidden contents

Modpack thread title: Eyecandy KSP Modpack

Thread content:

This modpack is to make KSP more... [description]

The mods for this pack are: [link to OP of the mods]

The modpack is teste using the versions x, y and z of the mods with KSP versio xyz. If a mod gets updated, please wait until compatibility is verified. If any problem arises, check for help here first.

Thanks for modders A, B and C for creating theses mods!

What do guys think? I only gave a quick read on the thread, since it grown a lot since a last visited it. I've some posts suggesting things more or less a like what a said, but not this way exactly, but sorry if I missed something!

What you are proposing isn't a modpack, it's a list of mods, or a "collection".  A Modpack is when someone packs them all together for a single download.

And, what you are proposing is fine, IMHO.  It's just like a CKAN list, only manual

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@linuxgurugamer Yes, it's not a modpack by definition, but it fulfills the role of it. The creator packs what he likes to play with and offer it to others, and someone looking for a group of mods that work together and have something in common find the content they want. Everyone gets respected and you don't need to use CKAN or have a all the mods on CKAN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are agreeing here.  No one objects to a list of mods, whether it be a CKAn list or a manual list.  The whole thing here is about the packing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.