inigma

This is indeed true. At the very least it will require someone willing to collect the ideas into a central area and publish it. I can certainly do that part. Keeping the framework simple to the vision of a balanced approach to a career game that includes sounding rockets > ground vehicles > boats and submersibles > aircraft > unmanned rockets > probes & rovers to planets > manned spacecraft > landings > space stations > spaceplanes > and beyond is really all that this is for. I guess to really start brainstorming, what are the basics to a balanced career game following the CCBF progression above? Publication (Thread OP, CKAN, Member Mod Update Management) Cost Rules? (how are they implemented? module manager? i have no idea how to even do this, but some of you guys might) Tech Trees Contract Packs Parts Utilities any other categories we should consider? Finally, as far as decisions go, I was thinking of making this a project by consensus. This means taking all valid input possible, and then making a decision that supports the overall vision, and not our own personal preferences (while still allowing for flexibility for CCBF to allow personal preferences). As long as we agree on the progression framework above, I think the answers to other questions will be more readily found. I am sure Costing Rules will present the greatest challenge. Perhaps existing or prospective balance mod authors would care to input on costing ideas?

Is the pinwheel design the best way to present your nodes? How hard would it be to convert it to a tree form?

I don't have time myself but I wanted to at least open the conversation. I can manage a thread. I'm good at that at least ;).

You want to help with that?

also inviting recommend Holodeck by @enneract and @linuxgurugamer and @Yelo

I was hoping to invite @Probus to this discussion since he is developing ETT actively. We can submit push requests via his github now and make his ETT really take off. I like ETT's philosophical approach and tech tree slightly better than SETI's. Have you looked at ETT in comparison? If so, what do you see at the pros and cons? Bear in mind the tech tree doesn't need to be just one. There could be multiple tech trees as long as it serves the Community Career Balance Framework of allowing a player to unlock techs in the order of: sounding rockets > ground vehicles > boats and submersibles > aircraft > unmanned rockets > probes to planets > manned spacecraft > landings > space stations > spaceplanes In fact, any mod can certify now that it meets CCBF if it manages to fit into this framework. This also means any other tech tree following that general order will be CCBF compatible and capable of being listed and recommended. If you want to run with SETI as a CCBF alternative to ETT, let me know, but first let me know why you'd prefer that over ETT. Inviting @Probus @nightingale @severedsolo @RoverDude @DMagic @keptin and @seanmcdougall to this discussion. Feel free to invite others.

See my sig for GAP if interested. Try any of @severedsolo's mods too.

ETT is finally on github with an active developer. SETI CTT does not have an active developer yet.

This project has moved to: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/129805-community-career-framework-a-standard-career%C2%A0progression-and-mod-compatibility-cooperative%C2%A0for-career-games-tech-trees-contract-packs-stock-alike-recommend-standards-for-part-mods/#comment-2359045 Please update your links accordingly. - inigma ==================================== CCF - Community Career Framework - Community Standards for Balance Among Career Mods I was wondering if there was a need to get modders to collaborate on developing their mods as part of basic career mod family which would be focused on balance between all families of mods in a standard career Modular Progression Framework model using a Standard Costs, Outputs, Rewards, and Experience worksheet. Modular Progression Framework: ground vehicles & boats > submersibles > aircraft > sounding rockets > unmanned rockets > probes > manned spacecraft > rover landings > manned landings > space stations > spaceplanes > bases > colonies > interstellar Research for each module family would offer components that are most rudimentary/basic first, dependent on having researched only historically related technologies offered in Progression Framework nodes before it. Contracts for each module family would offer targets that are not explored, closest first. Mods in all families would have balanced outputs, costs, and rewards vs all other mods in all families in order to self-certify as CCF compliant by adhering to the CCF Standard Costs, Outputs, Rewards and Experience worksheet (CCF SCORE - hey I like friendly acronyms) The idea behind the Modular Progression Framework is to certify that balances will still exist if a career player removes any of the module families, such a player who cares not to start with ground vehicles or subs, and wants to skip straight to manned spacecraft but remove colonies and interstellar module families would still find a reasonably balanced and thus playable game. Standards, Costs, Outputs, Rewards, and Experience (SCORE) Worksheet Link (TBD - To be Determined) Fuel Ratios for Fuel Tank Parts Should be: (Procedural Part's standard) volume of tank * 0.86 CCF Certified Mods: (TBD) Tech Trees: recommend ETT by @Probus Strategies: recommend Strategia by @nightingale Contract Packs: recommend GAP by @inigma recommend Space Stations by @severedsolo etc Parts: recommend USI Sounding Rockets @RoverDude recommend DMagic Orbital Science by @DMagic recommend KAX by @keptin Utilities: recommend Take Command by @seanmcdougall recommend Holodeck by @enneract recommend Waypoint Manager by @nightingale The idea would be for the members of this family/coop to build interactivity or optional dependencies for other members so balance and cross-compatibility can be guaranteed by players opting to install any or all of these mods together. Previous attempts to create a balance mod depended on the effort usually of one individual (SETI, BTSM) and licencing restrictions preventing others from easily picking up and carrying on. A mod coop or family would help mitigate this as the mod family as a whole would not be absolutely dependent on other members unless the licensing of such dependent mods were open to anyone carrying the torch. Ideas? Thoughts? Feasible? Essentially this would be a recommended base install of mods that would act as a framework for other modders to carve out a place in the framework and code their mod if necessary to certify compatibility with it.

I can wait. I'll be drafting this contract this weekend. KSC Coast Guard: Buoy Drop (drop two buoys in the waters off KSC) #34 https://github.com/inigmatus/GAP/issues/34

Post an imgur for others to see.

I Bugged forum. Argh. Why can't I get rid of these quote boxes? Every reply to this thread from my phone is infected with this quoted reply. Sorry kevin. Finally!

I think I might provide a basic sey of buoys but allow the player to design their own buoys... you guys have so many amazing designs!

Test a plane and let me know!

How does one use the desktop version on a mobile?

the buoy will be gifted regardless of tech level.

Navigation buoy. Cardinal, with a small science package to watch out for storms. Awesome! Very aerodynamic and modern buoy-looking. You are at the top of the list. I will test them out and let you know! I like it! To keep them upright, possibly use some ballast? Ore or fuel tank?

So do you have a download link?

I can't post using this sofware when using an Android phone. Using either the stock Internet Browser or Chrome. All text fields (for the body content) are covered over and only Insert other media appears as a button. Can someone please test posting to the forum via an Android device using Chrome browser or the stock Internet browser? I have an S2 and HTC Evo, and both phones are unable to post to these forums because of the broken body text field.

I'm probably not the only contract author excited for this. Looking forward to what you can come up with!

maculator has giving me his blessing to take over Kerbal Aircraft Builders (KAB) from him and merge it into GAP. I've slated this merge for inclusion in GAP 2.0.

A most excellent design! I forgot to mention it needs a barometer so I can check for deployment. Small part count preferred. Also needs a barometer (which I will use to check for buoy release). No tech tree or cash required. The subassembly is provided free of charge to the player, as-is regardless if one has the tech or not.

Maculator has given me his blessing to take over KAB. I will slate it for a GAP 2.0 release.

I need a buoy that can be dropped from an aircraft, and landed safely on the ocean, for a contract I am developing for my contract pack: Giving Aircraft a Purpose: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/124994-105dec-15-2015-contract-pack-giving-aircraft-a-purpose-gap-03-air-flights-tours-coast-guard-sts/ Specifically for: KSC Coast Guard: Buoy Drop (drop two buoys in the waters off KSC) #34 https://github.com/inigmatus/GAP/issues/34 Specifically it's to be required of a player when attempting to complete the KSC Coast Guard: Buoy Drop contract I am developing for GAP 0.4. The contract requires three or four buoys to be dropped in a single aircraft mission. If I select yours, you will receive proper credit! It needs an early game antenna, early game parachute, early game probe core (not sputnik), solar panel, barometer, and possibly a battery (not required). It also needs to be small enough that three or four can be carried on an airplane, preferably under a wing. A very simple set of parts, but who can design one or even a stackable set of buoys that actually look good? I'd make one myself, but I figured I'd give someone else the opportunity to have their work memorialized in a contract pack.