A Modding Community Divided.

[regex]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see no mention of telling you how to do things. Only stating that there is an issue. That issue is not with the mod authors. That does not mean that issue does not exist.

The point being that, even if there is an issue, they don't really have a say in whether it gets solved. Certainly you can plop down some tools in front of a modder, try to entice them to your ways, but it is up to them to pick them up. Whether someone adopts your ways is literally none of your business, especially in an environment where there is no way of harm being done, where you are getting content for free in someone's spare time. Hence, you really have no say in the issue.

E: I suppose this really doesn't matter, I just don't see the point in arguing whether there is an "issue" here. You are obviously trying to find a solution but it behooves other posters to remain constructive rather than continue parroting the "it's a problem" line.

Edited August 5, 2014 by regex

[R0cketC0der]

Sarbian, at first glance I do not see your mods listed on the KSP-AVC Plugin. Is it safe to say that you do not use this in your mods? If not, may I ask what brought you to that decision?

I can't answer for him, but my guess would be that the reason he doesn't do it is that he has no reason to do it and it would be more work.

[Master Tao]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see no mention of telling you how to do things. Only stating that there is an issue. That issue is not with the mod authors. That does not mean that issue does not exist.

That sounds about right – most modders in this thread sound content with primarily releasing on the forums using their own preferred host. They also seem tired of discussing alternatives, but if you can come up with a compelling incentive to switch to another method, many of them would be open to that. Demonstrate an implementation, then ask for constructive feedback.

Does that seem like a fair summary?

As an example, you'd want to provide something the forums can't, like a way to walk beginners through the bug reporting process. I'm imagining a common bug reporting form that shows users where to find logs, how to take screenshots, and how to describe reproduction steps. That template could generate a formatted report with appropriate links that the users could copy to the forums so that others could see it. If you set up something like that, maybe you can convince modders that it's worth the extra work to host outside of the forums. Then you can start implementing features that make finding and updating mods easier for users.

[Superfluous J]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I see no mention of telling you how to do things. Only stating that there is an issue. That issue is not with the mod authors. That does not mean that issue does not exist.

How can someone both have a say in how regex creates and distributes his mods, yet also not be telling regex how to create and distribute his mods?

[TeddyDD]

The problem with the metadata approach is that either the mod authors maintain the metadata and that's more work (and if the format is complex then non coder may not be able to do it), or someone else does it and it adds potential errors and delay that will be pinned on the modder (if you expect users to see that the modder is not to blame you're fooling yourself)

That's something useful.

In general, metadata should be as simple as possible:

-basic mod info

-version

-download link

-Dependencies

and information how to unpack the archive.

I think it will be hard to screw up something here. As for users... Nothing can help to human stupidity.

[ferram4]

Let me put it this way:

If we get easier "installation" of mods, each of us will get more users and more support requests.

If we get auto-updating, everything will be fine until that system breaks, at which point, each of us will have to deal with the swarms of users who have issues, because they'll blame the modder, not the update-system coder.

If we get some package managing system, it'll be the same as the auto-updating system, except not just for updating, it'll be for "installing" in the first place. And then there will be the issue of making sure that the package manager always points to the most up-to-date version, which means that I will have to rush out to make sure that people aren't downloading out-of-date versions, because I can't rely on someone else to do it for me.

In all of these, I have to do more work; in the latter two, my workload is dependent entirely on the competence of whoever sets up those systems, and I'm not a tremendous fan of other people making this harder for me. Further, the latter two will effectively require me to support that mess as well as my projects, and I'm completely boned if the author of either of those gets bored and leaves. I already spend an amazing amount of time on support requests. I don't want to spend any more time on it.

@ATheAlmightyOS: You mentioned that you wanted a solution (to a problem that I don't think is, but that's another argument entirely) that did not interfere with modders. You are seeking a unicorn. The yeti. Faeries. You will not find it. Every solution you will come up with will make things worse for us, since we will have more support requests to deal with. We've already optimized things to make creating and supporting mods almost as easy as it could be; the only places where it could be made easier there are huge risks if the system ever breaks that suddenly things will become worse as users used to package managers become lost at the idea of having to use (horror of horrors) Windows Explorer (cringe) to move files around. And then we'll have to deal with the complaining from that, not you or whoever is running that project.

Here is my advice: if you really think that this is such a problem for end users, and you are unsatisfied with the priorities of modders, you should stop what you're doing in this thread. Stop pretending that you're going to help us or that you're trying to. Stop trying to get a sanction from us; we already know we're getting a raw deal here. Support and implement one of those ideas in spite of us. Go ahead, make our workloads heavier. Force it on us. Then maybe we'll hate you as much as you seem to think we do.

But you don't want to do that? But you don't want to listen to the answer of modders and stop, so I'm not sure what you're going to do then. The interests of end-users and modders are not aligned perfectly in this situation, and for the things being discussed it's a zero-sum game once you account for imperfect systems.

[southernrock]

This is very true. To make this work you need to come up with a system that draws in modders and makes things easier for them, a system that is clearly superior to their way of doing things. You need to benefit the modders. If you can't come up with a system that does that, you'll never realize your goal. You also need to realize that you're not going to persuade everyone, either.

So bascially, nothing will happen with that attitude? The complaint is from users asking modders to help with the organization, distribution, and just a better system to maintain so many mods. Things can no doubt be better in that department and will continue to get worse as time goes on. As it is now and will continue to be, no benefit to the authors doing so because this is strictly a request from users. Like a UI improvement that people may complain about, or a feature that may be requested. It is a little extra work from the author, but its to help the overall user experience. Im entirely grateful for the work authors do, and continued amazement at what they can do, so please dont think Im being ungrateful. But nothing can, or will be done with people being stubborn and complacent. Users need and want a better system and this is entirely a user requested thing. With the "you need to benefit the modders' attitude, yea nothing will happen because this isnt about benefiting them, its about creating a better overal experience for the people wanting to use their stuff. Give us a list of things that would benifit them? Coke? Cookies? Seriously? Most of the things that authors make and do, are above most of the users heads and cannot even begin to think how they can help them. We cannot come up with any system without input from authors and that isnt happening in this thread. Why dont you tell me REGEX, what will benifit you? What can we users do that would help in implementing a system that helps me manage yours and 50 other mods/add-ons? We are asking for open input, we are asking for insight, we are looking for constructive criticism, what we arent looking for is being .... blocked

[TheAlmightyOS]

How can someone both have a say in how regex creates and distributes his mods, yet also not be telling regex how to create and distribute his mods?

Who says anyone needs a say in how anyone distributes anyone's mods? We are discussing possibilities, pipe dreams and some possible tools which, unless Squad deems it so, would be completely and utterly optional for modders to use.

We don't want to dictate what you guys do. Who would want that suicide inducing job? We just want to try and come up with a way to bring a small amount of order to the chaos without interfering with you guys at all.

[regex]

What can we users do that would help in implementing a system that helps me manage yours and 50 other mods/add-ons?

Stop complaining. Learn how to use your computer, the forums, bookmarks in your browser. Make constructive bug reports. Pay attention.

Anyway, that's not my issue. I have no problem maintaining my own extensive mod list, and I have a wife and kid and very little free time:

[Master Tao]

ferram4, regex, and sarbian have all made the same point in the last two pages: Anything you change will mean more work for them. You'll need to come up with ideas that make it worth their time and effort. I've given an example of one way you might do something the forums can't, but you'll need more and better and to implement them on your own. "Build it and they will come."

[TheAlmightyOS]

Let me put it this way:

If we get easier "installation" of mods, each of us will get more users and more support requests.

If we get auto-updating, everything will be fine until that system breaks, at which point, each of us will have to deal with the swarms of users who have issues, because they'll blame the modder, not the update-system coder.

If we get some package managing system, it'll be the same as the auto-updating system, except not just for updating, it'll be for "installing" in the first place. And then there will be the issue of making sure that the package manager always points to the most up-to-date version, which means that I will have to rush out to make sure that people aren't downloading out-of-date versions, because I can't rely on someone else to do it for me.

In all of these, I have to do more work; in the latter two, my workload is dependent entirely on the competence of whoever sets up those systems, and I'm not a tremendous fan of other people making this harder for me. Further, the latter two will effectively require me to support that mess as well as my projects, and I'm completely boned if the author of either of those gets bored and leaves. I already spend an amazing amount of time on support requests. I don't want to spend any more time on it.

@ATheAlmightyOS: You mentioned that you wanted a solution (to a problem that I don't think is, but that's another argument entirely) that did not interfere with modders. You are seeking a unicorn. The yeti. Faeries. You will not find it. Every solution you will come up with will make things worse for us, since we will have more support requests to deal with. We've already optimized things to make creating and supporting mods almost as easy as it could be; the only places where it could be made easier there are huge risks if the system ever breaks that suddenly things will become worse as users used to package managers become lost at the idea of having to use (horror of horrors) Windows Explorer (cringe) to move files around. And then we'll have to deal with the complaining from that, not you or whoever is running that project.

Here is my advice: if you really think that this is such a problem for end users, and you are unsatisfied with the priorities of modders, you should stop what you're doing in this thread. Stop pretending that you're going to help us or that you're trying to. Stop trying to get a sanction from us; we already know we're getting a raw deal here. Support and implement one of those ideas in spite of us. Go ahead, make our workloads heavier. Force it on us. Then maybe we'll hate you as much as you seem to think we do.

But you don't want to do that? But you don't want to listen to the answer of modders and stop, so I'm not sure what you're going to do then. The interests of end-users and modders are not aligned perfectly in this situation, and for the things being discussed it's a zero-sum game once you account for imperfect systems.

Then what do you want me to do for support. We are asking something of you. Ask of us. What do you want us to do about the support issue.

[Moss]

When you download a mod, you don't just get the mod. This is especially true for early access games. When you download a mod, you are making a gamble that the modder will continue to support and update that mod for the rest of the development cycle- and hopefully future-proof it for future releases. You are getting the whole package- mod and modder. There's no financial incentive for the nodders to continue their work, and they're not bound by any obligations to keep the mod working for future updates (unless they say so).

There is an upside to this. The only reason a player has ever downloaded a mod is because they believe it will improve their gaming experience. This, at least, shows some rudimentary respect for the modder and their work. This is why players get sore if they think their good thing will come to an end. But that's the thing with mods, and games as a whole. There WILL be an update that breaks your favourite mod, long after the original modder has since quit and fled to the Caribbean. Even the game itself will stop being updated eventually. Technology will change and after a while (hopefully a long time though) no-one will be playing KSP. Everyone who ever worked on or played the game will be long dead. There could be a global disaster that wipes out all electronic technology and any means of acquiring or playing KSP.

My point is that absolutely nothing lasts forever. Modders will and do get bored. Remember then to ONLY appreciate their hard work, and play KSP for what it is, not what it should be. Players should stop demanding complicated systems in order to maintain their illusion.

[TheAlmightyOS]

Actually, you know what, let's get EVERYONE in on this: ferram4, regex, and sarbian:

Let's forget what I am in here for. You are saying support is an issue. What can we do, as a community, that can help you with support? Bug Trackers? Wiki's? Ticket systems? I can demo all of these things on my server if you so choose to take a look. Tell me what you need to deal with support issues

[TeddyDD]

@ferram4 That's why we ask you for an opinion instead of blindly create something.

I understand that you do not need the extra work when creating mods. I appreciate your hard work. Without mods KSP would be nothing (still I don't understand stock players). When we do not find an appropriate solution we leave off. If you do not trust any third party package maintainers It can be difficult. I have to think about all this extensively.

[ferram4]

Support is an issue only when people propose making it more difficult through implementing various schemes.

Otherwise it's just an expected part of being a modder.

Github already has an issue tracker and wikis that we can use. In any case, it's not going to be useful because users won't go there; there's really no way to force them there either.

Support-wise, we've probably got the best we can have.

[Padishar]

Actually, you know what, let's get EVERYONE in on this: ferram4, regex, and sarbian:

Let's forget what I am in here for. You are saying support is an issue. What can we do, as a community, that can help you with support? Bug Trackers? Wiki's? Ticket systems? I can demo all of these things on my server if you so choose to take a look. Tell me what you need to deal with support issues

If users can't even read and follow the simple instructions in the first post of many mods about what to include in a bug report post, what on earth makes you think that they will be able to do any better with a bug tracker/ticket system?

[TheAlmightyOS]

Support is an issue only when people propose making it more difficult through implementing various schemes.

Otherwise it's just an expected part of being a modder.

Github already has an issue tracker and wikis that we can use. In any case, it's not going to be useful because users won't go there; there's really no way to force them there either.

Support-wise, we've probably got the best we can have.

If users can't even read and follow the simple instructions in the first post of many mods about what to include in a bug report post, what on earth makes you think that they will be able to do any better with a bug tracker/ticket system?

I don't. I was throwing ideas blindly like scattershot. Ferram4 said that support would crush you guys if we attempt any solution. So I want to address it. This is not going away. But I am not leaving here without figuring out what we can do for you guys so it ain't any more work then what you already do (or less)

I wish I could make a mod to make your mod users more intelligent. But if I could do that I would not be here.

Edited August 5, 2014 by TheAlmightyOS

[ferram4]

I already told you that such a "solution" does not exist, not without perfect coding on someone's part (which as we all know, is never going to happen). And if it's imperfect coding, it's less work until it breaks, at which point, it's a hell of a lot more work.

You can't do anything for us. You don't like that answer, but it's the truth. If something could be done to help, it would have been done long before you arrived here. All you can do is things that will make everything more difficult for modders.

[sirkut]

One thing I always see is expectation of modders and what they should do but we haven't really focused on the other side. What is expected of the users who use the mods. I could think of a few things:

1. Until some install packager is standardize, learn basic file manipulations.

2. Learn how to read the output_log.txt and perform basic troubleshooting, sometimes just looking at the log file will help.

3. If you can't figure out what the log file says, report it to the relevant thread AFTER reading the first post of the mod AND at least 4 to 5 recent pages of that thread.

[NathanKell]

I would also like to (sadly) point out that, recently, there was a thread. A thread that began by pointing to an example of a modder being driven away from GTA modding, due to abusive non-constructive criticism, and asking that we all make sure such a thing did not occur here. By the end of the thread--which had to be locked--people were seriously arguing that abusive criticism was actually a good thing and that modders should embrace it; the other very common position was that "jerks gonna be jerks" so there really isn't anything to be done.

So, I think understandably, modders are quite chary about anything that would

1. Lower the bar for users, bringing in more of the instant gratification (and anger at lack thereof) crowd.

2. Add more points of failure--for which, as ferram says, we will be blamed. Consider how many threads have been about "mod x crashes my x64!" despite the fact that x64 is a buggy mess (and we were explicitly told it was a buggy mess) and that every time we have pointed out that no, it is not the mod's problem.

3. On top of all that, add more work for modders (curating metadata) or making us rely on third parties--which, however well-intentioned, may make mistakes (leading us to 2) or have a Bad Case of the RLs and need to leave the scene, either forcing us to maintain the now-defunct project or (back to 2!) have us blamed when users run out-of-date mods.

And in case I haven't depressed you enough, let's add 4.

4. KSP 0.24 was the first release of KSP where the CompatabilityChecker was an active presence. CompatabilityChecker is a tool many of us include in our mods; it will throw up a warning if the mod is used on a version of KSP for which it was not designed.

Let's examine how users reacted.

The number 1 response: "How do I disable this?"

#2: "But the mod works fine!"--but just because KSP is able to load, and nothing obvious is catastrophically broken, does not mean that the mod (a) actually works, or ( doesn't break under the surface in such a way as to break *other* mods, even though it itself works more or less ok.

The worst part of this, of course, is that all the mods that *don't* implement CompatibilityChecker--still the majority, sadly--are therefore assumed to work fine. So the ones that *do* actually bother to warn of potential incompatibilities are then blamed for the problems that result.

So now that I have written a quite depressing post, I want to add something constructive.

You're asking "What can I actually do?"

Well, here's a concrete set of steps that will actually lower our support burden.

1. If you see someone post a problem, and they don't follow the (following) rukes, tell them to:

1. Describe the problem

2. Reproduction steps (using the minimal number of mods, preferably only the mod you claim has the bug)

3. Cause the problem. Quit KSP (if it hasn't crashed). Upload your entire output log (NOT ksp.log) to dropbox or something.

Windows: KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt OR KSP_win64\KSP_x64_DATA\output_log.txt (depending on which used)

Mac OSX: Open Console, on the left side of the window there is a menu that says 'files'. Scroll down the list and find the Unity drop down, under Unity there will be Player.log ( Files>~/Library/Logs>Unity>Player.log )

Linux: ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log

Doing that alone will probably cut by 30% the number of support-related posts modders have to make. Users almost never follow those steps; we have to spend time asking them to do so, then explaining that yes we really mean it, and no we can't offer help without it, and only then can we finally actually get to diagnosing the problem.

2. Once you get comfortable reading these logs (and seeing how modders read them to find problems), start offering support yourself. If you see that what's actually breaking in the log is, say, RCS Build Aid, rather than FAR, point that out. If you see that a mod is installed wrong (you can sometimes tell this from the log), point that out.

Edited August 5, 2014 by NathanKell

[TheAlmightyOS]

I already told you that such a "solution" does not exist, not without perfect coding on someone's part (which as we all know, is never going to happen). And if it's imperfect coding, it's less work until it breaks, at which point, it's a hell of a lot more work.

You can't do anything for us. You don't like that answer, but it's the truth. If something could be done to help, it would have been done long before you arrived here. All you can do is things that will make everything more difficult for modders.

"if something could be done, it would have been done long before now"

Phrases loosely akin to that one have been said throughout history, ferram4. Notably "If man were meant to fly, he would have wings". Marvels of technology and architecture, once thought impossible, exist all around us. And here we are, arguing about mods for a pre-launch game on a forum

Right now, you have it dead set in your mind that a solution is not possible. For me, it is the opposite. Our realities collide. There is some friction. But does it have to be this way?

We disagree, this is true. But what is the harm of talking? Throwing about some "what-if's" and "maybe's". We might stumble upon something groundbreaking. or not. In the end what have we really lost but some free time and some kilobytes on Squad's server HDD.

I will tell you this just like it was mentioned up-thread: we are not going to implement anything till we have an idea the modders are happy with that. Call that a unicorn if you wish. I found him once I can find him again. Might be in my fav mods list at Nexus actually....

EDIT: Found Him! Well, a different one. But still a unicorn so still counts.

I would also like to (sadly) point out that, recently, there was a thread. A thread that began by pointing to an example of a modder being driven away from GTA modding, due to abusive non-constructive criticism, and asking that we all make sure such a thing did not occur here. By the end of the thread--which had to be locked--people were seriously arguing that abusive criticism was actually a good thing and that modders should embrace it; the other very common position was that "jerks gonna be jerks" so there really isn't anything to be done.

So, I think understandably, modders are quite chary about anything that would

1. Lower the bar for users, bringing in more of the instant gratification (and anger at lack thereof) crowd.

2. Add more points of failure--for which, as ferram says, we will be blamed. Consider how many threads have been about "mod x crashes my x64!" despite the fact that x64 is a buggy mess (and we were explicitly told it was a buggy mess) and that every time we have pointed out that no, it is not the mod's problem.

3. On top of all that, add more work for modders (curating metadata) or making us rely on third parties--which, however well-intentioned, may make mistakes (leading us to 2) or have a Bad Case of the RLs and need to leave the scene, either forcing us to maintain the now-defunct project or (back to 2!) have us blamed when users run out-of-date mods.

And in case I haven't depressed you enough, let's add 4.

4. KSP 0.24 was the first release of KSP where the CompatabilityChecker was an active presence. CompatabilityChecker is a tool many of us include in our mods; it will throw up a warning if the mod is used on a version of KSP for which it was not designed.

Let's examine how users reacted.

The number 1 response: "How do I disable this?"

#2: "But the mod works fine!"--but just because KSP is able to load, and nothing obvious is catastrophically broken, does not mean that the mod (a) actually works, or ( doesn't break under the surface in such a way as to break *other* mods, even though it itself works more or less ok.

The worst part of this, of course, is that all the mods that *don't* implement CompatibilityChecker--still the majority, sadly--are therefore assumed to work fine. So the ones that *do* actually bother to warn of potential incompatibilities are then blamed for the problems that result.

So now that I have written a quite depressing post, I want to add something constructive.

You're asking "What can I actually do?"

Well, here's a concrete set of steps that will actually lower our support burden.

1. If you see someone post a problem, and they don't follow the (following) rukes, tell them to:

1. Describe the problem

2. Reproduction steps (using the minimal number of mods, preferably only the mod you claim has the bug)

3. Cause the problem. Quit KSP (if it hasn't crashed). Upload your entire output log (NOT ksp.log) to dropbox or something.

Windows: KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt OR KSP_win64\KSP_x64_DATA\output_log.txt (depending on which used)

Mac OSX: Open Console, on the left side of the window there is a menu that says 'files'. Scroll down the list and find the Unity drop down, under Unity there will be Player.log ( Files>~/Library/Logs>Unity>Player.log )

Linux: ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log

Doing that alone will probably cut by 30% the number of support-related posts modders have to make. Users almost never follow those steps; we have to spend time asking them to do so, then explaining that yes we really mean it, and no we can't offer help without it, and only then can we finally actually get to diagnosing the problem.

2. Once you get comfortable reading these logs (and seeing how modders read them to find problems), start offering support yourself. If you see that what's actually breaking in the log is, say, RCS Build Aid, rather than FAR, point that out. If you see that a mod is installed wrong (you can sometimes tell this from the log), point that out.

Ok. I will do it. I am already editing Notepad++ to highlight the important bits of the output_log.txt so I can figure out why all my mod parts are not showing up. So helping the modders with this, I would do so gladly.

Edited August 5, 2014 by TheAlmightyOS
Consolidated consecutive replies by the same poster

[ferram4]

"if something could be done, it would have been done long before now"

Phrases loosely akin to that one have been said throughout history, ferram4. Notably "If man were meant to fly, he would have wings". Marvels of technology and architecture, once thought impossible, exist all around us. And here we are, arguing about mods for a pre-launch game on a forum

And yet, all of those criticisms were not followed by reasons why they would not work. We have all pointed out again and again why these ideas are not beneficial to modders; you being able to point to a single statement doesn't erase those.

Right now, you have it dead set in your mind that a solution is not possible. For me, it is the opposite. Our realities collide. There is some friction. But does it have to be this way?

You're proposing an idea that inevitably means more support work for me. Unless you're talking about paying me a handsome sum of cash (and I mean, a lot of money) every time someone downloads / updates my mod through any of the many methods being suggested to cover the sudden increase in workload, then yes, it must be that way. You don't get to add more work with no benefit without me being against it.

We disagree, this is true. But what is the harm of talking? Throwing about some "what-if's" and "maybe's". We might stumble upon something groundbreaking. or not. In the end what have we really lost but some free time and some kilobytes on Squad's server HDD.

All of the concrete ideas have already been discussed, argued against, and decided to be not worth it / ineffective. A very few have stubbornly trudged on despite modder wishes. Continuing to talk about the same ideas, again and again, doesn't really help.

I will tell you this just like it was mentioned up-thread: we are not going to implement anything till we have an idea the modders are happy with that. Call that a unicorn if you wish. I found him once I can find him again. Might be in my fav mods list at Nexus actually....

Then ultimately, we have no quarrel, since you will never achieve that. Good to know, I don't have to worry about any of the recent package managing / mod managing ideas going anywhere and making this more difficult for me.

[ialdabaoth]

So, I think understandably, modders are quite chary about anything that would

1. Lower the bar for users, bringing in more of the instant gratification (and anger at lack thereof) crowd.

2. Add more points of failure--for which, as ferram says, we will be blamed. Consider how many threads have been about "mod x crashes my x64!" despite the fact that x64 is a buggy mess (and we were explicitly told it was a buggy mess) and that every time we have pointed out that no, it is not the mod's problem.

3. On top of all that, add more work for modders (curating metadata) or making us rely on third parties--which, however well-intentioned, may make mistakes (leading us to 2) or have a Bad Case of the RLs and need to leave the scene, either forcing us to maintain the now-defunct project or (back to 2!) have us blamed when users run out-of-date mods.

See all that right there? That's EXACTLY why I stopped maintaining ModuleManager. (Thanks to swamp and serbian for picking up the slack, you guys are awesome)

[keks]

Then ultimately, we have no quarrel, since you will never achieve that. Good to know, I don't have to worry about any of the recent package managing / mod managing ideas going anywhere and making this more difficult for me.

I'd really like to meet you in person one day... I just cannot understand how someone can be so stubborn when someone shows up, wants to talk to you, and wants to work with you to make life easier for everyone. Such a project (be it what I proposed, or some other solution) would surely massively increase usability for end-users and could seamlessly integrate with your development environment.

We could for example create a MonoDevelop/XamarinStudio/VisialStudio/...-Plugin that automatically updates the meta-data (as far as possible) for you. When done properly you would even have to do less work than you have to do right now.

Ideally such a system/standard would have to be enforced by Squad, but it luckily is not, yet. This gives us, the community, the customers, the actual users, the opportunity to show Squad what we want and how things could work. We could a system which "just works", without causing any headache for any of the three sides.

As for the GitHub-thing, I already talked to the GutHub-guys, and there's nothing that they could think of that could come in our way, regarding the hosting-part. There are no license issues, no bandwidth issues, no storage size issues, etc. We'd also not have the problem that someone would suddenly abandon the project. If so, just fork the repo, let the users update their source addresses and you're done. You could even host your own repo yourself if you want to.

As I said, I really do not care if It's my proposed project, or anyone else. I just want something that works without making me spend days (!) trying to get mods working again when a new KSP release comes out. I do not want to read through 10 pages of posts to find out why X is currently not working 6 pages later someone posts a workaround, that according to 2 pages later does not work when condition Y is met, blah blah... and in the time i crawled through this mess of random posts the modder updated the mod again... It's just a pain in the ass right now IMHO.

- anyways, have a nice day!

[TheAlmightyOS]

ferram,

I do not know why you are scared to talk to me. I am really not a bad guy. I want to help everyone. Maybe that is my flaw. I can't just say screw it. But I think it is time. You guys simply do not want help. You can not comprehend that when more and more people start buying this game and using your mods that it would be beneficial to have a program that updates and properly installs your mods and CUT DOWN on support requests from people using outdated versions and incorrectly installed installed mods. I know you won't see it that way but that was how it happened at Nexus. The NMM came out and support requests dropped for this sort of thing.

I will do as NathanKell suggested and help out around the forum with the support requests. But I won't peruse dialog with you guys anymore. It is obviously fruitless.