MOVED! (Mods Please Lock Thread) Community Career Framework - A Balance Mod Standards Cooperative for Career Games (A Community Recommended Mod List that Commits to Working Well Together in Career Games)

[RoverDude]

9 minutes ago, inigma said:

Then how would you like to see the CCF project be modified so as to accommodate the USi mods as part of its recommended/compatible mods? What would you like to see from a community based Career balancing project?

The key is non invasive - i.e. where I think this project went off the rails is when it went from 'let's all just agree to get along' and by 'let's all', I mean modders - i.e. the people actually making the content.  Tech trees and contract packs?  Awesome.  Rebalancing?  No bueno.  Pick stock as your yardstick, because it's what most people code to.  Don't do silly things like change how fuel tanks or science work.  And you will see a lot more adoption.  Because at that point, it's just a matter of making sure we level set to stock, and pick where we go in a second tech tree (which is pretty easy peasy).  And again, by 'we' I mean the people making the content.

(edit) 

And yep, there would need to be appropriate tech tree nodes.  But the person selecting where their stuff goes is the original content creator.  i.e. this project should not include configs for anything other than stock (and leave the stock nodes in there so all mods have an intelligent fallback).  And by that I mean stock nodes, not stock configs, since that's what most of us balance against.  And if you change the definition of stock (i.e. fuel tanks) then we either have to maintain two configs (not cool) or accept that our players that use other tech trees, etc. are kinda out of balance now (also not cool).

Edited January 12, 2016 by RoverDude

[inigma]

36 minutes ago, Probus said:

Maybe #CCF ?

im not able to join an IRC chan unfortunately. but feel free to set one up!

35 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

The key is non invasive - i.e. where I think this project went off the rails is when it went from 'let's all just agree to get along' and by 'let's all', I mean modders - i.e. the people actually making the content.  Tech trees and contract packs?  Awesome.  Rebalancing?  No bueno.  Pick stock as your yardstick, because it's what most people code to.  Don't do silly things like change how fuel tanks or science work.  And you will see a lot more adoption.  Because at that point, it's just a matter of making sure we level set to stock, and pick where we go in a second tech tree (which is pretty easy peasy).  And again, by 'we' I mean the people making the content.

(edit) 

And yep, there would need to be appropriate tech tree nodes.  But the person selecting where their stuff goes is the original content creator.  i.e. this project should not include configs for anything other than stock (and leave the stock nodes in there so all mods have an intelligent fallback).  And by that I mean stock nodes, not stock configs, since that's what most of us balance against.  And if you change the definition of stock (i.e. fuel tanks) then we either have to maintain two configs (not cool) or accept that our players that use other tech trees, etc. are kinda out of balance now (also not cool).

I think that is the intent of the balancing part of the CCF project - to keep stock untouched. The idea for CCF though would be to have part modders have a reference point supported by the community when coming up with their own part values. As such, there is no guidance in place. If a part modder wants to code their own values, so be it. If CCF players really want that mod, but consider it extremely balanced, I think the CCF community would do right in asking the part modder to reconsider their balances since really it's all about group compatibility with stock first, popular mods second. If a part modder refused, then I could see people submitting Module Manager requests for CCF to adopt just to make things playable, but again, it would be a consensus, not arbitrary decision if that were so. How does this sound?  I have no intention of introducing a project that alters stock significantly or even moderately, and asking modders to code compatibility for that. That would be a nightmare to manage. This is about cooperative development of tech trees and contract packs first, part balance standards second, stock compatibility near to 100% as we can make it, and make things playable.

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[RoverDude]

8 minutes ago, inigma said:

i  If CCF players really want that mod, but consider it extremely balanced, I think the CCF community would do right in asking the part modder to reconsider their balances since really it's all about group compatibility with stock first, popular mods second. If a part modder refused, then I could see people submitting Module Manager requests for CCF to adopt just to make things playable, but again, it would be a consensus, not arbitrary decision if that were so. 

And that is the bit I fundamentally disagree with,  Reality is that there are mods that are incompatible and will always be so (i.e. KSPI has a radically different balance than, say, NFE.  And that's ok), and if a modder is not interested in supporting CCF, CCF should do the right thing and not become a support issue spawner by taking in MM configs that undo a modder's work,  Simple as that.  At the end of the day, the balance that a content creator feels is appropriate to their mod should be respected.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, most of us have already sorted this - we balance against eachother, or balance against stock, or some combination of the two, and it works.  Pretty much what I see CCF offering is contract progression and another tech tree, and that's fine.  

[inigma]

24 minutes ago, RoverDude said:

And that is the bit I fundamentally disagree with,  Reality is that there are mods that are incompatible and will always be so (i.e. KSPI has a radically different balance than, say, NFE.  And that's ok), and if a modder is not interested in supporting CCF, CCF should do the right thing and not become a support issue spawner by taking in MM configs that undo a modder's work,  Simple as that.  At the end of the day, the balance that a content creator feels is appropriate to their mod should be respected.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, most of us have already sorted this - we balance against eachother, or balance against stock, or some combination of the two, and it works.  Pretty much what I see CCF offering is contract progression and another tech tree, and that's fine.  

How about separating part balancing from CCF entirely (so CCF doesn't end up endorsing any particular MM config, but just provides part balance guidance?

This would leave in the freedom for others to come up with their own configs if desired but not place the burden on CCF to manage that and not placing the burden on part modders to support such?

This would leave CCF to focus on three areas:

1. Certify Tech Trees compatible with CCF progression

2. Certify Contract Packs compatible with each other and CCF progression.

3. Publication of a recommended list of part values. 

The only list of mods we would maintain would be compatible tech trees and contract packs. 

Thoughts?

[legoclone09]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Maybe #CCF ?

Yes, I would like that but I would like to ask @inigma if the main project acronym can be CCBF, I think Community Career Balance Framework tells the user a bit more than what Community Career Framework does. If so I'll use that for the IRC and what network should it be on? I'd say EsperNet so people can connect directly from KSPOfficial. I might make it Invite Only so random people don't join.

Edited January 12, 2016 by legoclone09

[RoverDude]

42 minutes ago, inigma said:

How about separating part balancing from CCF entirely (so CCF doesn't end up endorsing any particular MM config, but just provides part balance guidance?

This would leave in the freedom for others to come up with their own configs if desired but not place the burden on CCF to manage that and not placing the burden on part modders to support such?

This would leave CCF to focus on three areas:

1. Certify Tech Trees compatible with CCF progression

2. Certify Contract Packs compatible with each other and CCF progression.

3. Publication of a recommended list of part values. 

The only list of mods we would maintain would be compatible tech trees and contract packs. 

Thoughts?

That would certainly make it a lot easier on the content creators (since at that point it's merely a case of opting into alternate career tree(s)).

[legoclone09]

Just here saying I made an IRC channel, it is on EsperNet and it is #CCBF, I will have it use a password, join with /j CCBF inigma

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by legoclone09

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hello,

Are there any excel and/or relational database programmers here? Here is what I want...

I have an old tech tree - latest one I used back in 24.2...most if not all the part names have not changed.

The current format:

 

@PART[panel-static01]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = advSolarTech
}

 

An example of a repetive list:

NODE
{
    name = node2_generalRocketry
    techID = generalRocketry
    pos = -1652.237,1074.484,-1
    icon = GENERALROCKETRY
    cost = 50
    title = General Rocketry
    description = More engines, more fuel, more ambitious ideas.
    anyParent = False
    hideIfEmpty = False
    parents = node1_basicRocketry
    PARTS
    {
        name = FASALM.AscentEngine
        name = FASAExplorerLFTSmall
        name = liquidEngine3
        name = sepMotor1
        name = fuelTankSmall
        name = stackDecouplerMini
        name = stackSeparatorMini
        name = SR.Rocket02
        name = USI.PodEngine
    }
}

 

1) The procedure is to grab the node name and place it in the @PART[*] area (IE name = node*)

2) Repeat for all parts  in the name = partname list until next name = node* or until next "}" using a delimiter or however is most efficient

This program would simply write the patches for all the names of the parts in an older tech tree; in this way the old tech tree loader and/or techmanager can write up a tech tree graphically and submit the tree for patch writing.

This really seems like an easy program to write

Commander Zeta

[Probus]

6 hours ago, Cdr_Zeta said:

Hello,

Are there any excel and/or relational database programmers here? Here is what I want...

I have an old tech tree - latest one I used back in 24.2...most if not all the part names have not changed.

 

Commander Zeta

Not me Commander Zeta, What you need is someone good at REGEX.  I had a ETT contributor help me.  You could ask him and see if he has the time.  He may already have the code.  His name is @troyfawkes.

@legoclone09:

Just here saying I made an IRC channel, it is on EsperNet and it is #CCBF, I will have it use a password, join with /j CCBF inigma

 

I used "/join #CCBT inigma" and no one is there.  Loneliness is setting in  or did I do something wrong?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Probus

[inigma]

27 minutes ago, Probus said:

Not me Commander Zeta, What you need is someone good at REGEX.  I had a ETT contributor help me.  You could ask him and see if he has the time.  He may already have the code.  His name is @troyfawkes.

@legoclone09:

I used "/join #CCBT inigma" and no one is there.  Loneliness is setting in  or did I do something wrong?

I think we need to seriously consider RoverDude's input and remove the Balance part of the CCF vision, but retain discussion on balance and still offer a sheet detailing recommended balances based on stock balance values.

As such at this point it becomes difficult to recommend calling this Community Career Balance Framework, rather than just Community Career Framework. The idea being that balances by the project will still be recommended but not required by part modders (and thus no need to list parts). Modders working their balance visions are free to do so independently (and thus responsible for the support for such rather than placing the burden on part modders to comply,  thus speeding CCF adoption). Thoughts?

All that to say that the IRC chan should just be CCF.  not CCBF.

[Yemo]

@inigma, @RoverDude

Imho without (stock) part balancing, CCF would not add anything beyond selecting compatible tech tree and contracts, making the whole project pointless.

Any thoughts on my proposal to just balance stock parts (without much deviating on a whole from the current stock). Just stuff like fuel tanks around what is already percieved to be a kind of balance (in this case procedural parts values). Or the engines around what @stupid_chris did for ksp 0.24, eg bringing outliers like the poodle into line and making them useful even when using tweakscale.

There would be no MM patches to mod parts from the CCF side. That would be totally up to the (part) modder, so it is opt-in.

 

Thus CCF is a set of "standards", and modders (tech tree, contracts, parts) can decide whether they want to adhere to them or not. Those standards are only applied to stock (parts, tech tree, contracts). If a mod is compatible, it is listed as such, if not, it simply is not listed. No dabbling into mods.

 

edit: Just like CTT, Community Resource Pack and so on do set standards and may change stock, but it is up to the modders if they want to opt-in.

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Yemo

[legoclone09]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

I used "/join #CCBT inigma" and no one is there.  Loneliness is setting in  or did I do something wrong?

Well if you weren't an operator on the server it must have worked! You also might want to register a nickname for the channel, but you really don't need to.

[Probus]

13 minutes ago, Yemo said:

@inigma, @RoverDude

Imho without (stock) part balancing, CCF would not add anything beyond selecting compatible tech tree and contracts, making the whole project pointless.

Yemo, balanced tech trees like yours and mine for example are very important along with compatible contracts.  For me a new good tech tree is like starting KSP over with a totally new set of planets.  Very much a challenging "into the unknown".  Or am I misreading what you are trying to say.

[Randazzo]

38 minutes ago, Yemo said:

edit: Just like CTT, Community Resource Pack and so on do set standards and may change stock, but it is up to the modders if they want to opt-in.

CTT and CRP add to stock, they don't change it. Not using either of them doesn't make a mod incompatible with them; it simply means not taking advantage of their extended resources/tech tree. Altering the stock game takes this outside a simple opt-in set of standards and turns it into a progression overhaul of it's own, creating conflicts for mods that choose not to rework balance to suit it.

For the people who put this together and other modders, it's not a huge deal right off the bat to be incompatible with each other, but it can become a problem down the line if someone were to download a non-compliant part pack and find that the engines or parts don't perform as advertised because they also have this project installed and it alters the fuel-mass ratio of stock tanks (and who knows what else will get altered as this progresses). One can't expect the majority of end-users to do anything but go to the mod author to ask why their parts aren't working as expected.

And as I said before, there's nothing wrong with that sort of a project at all, just don't do it under the guise of some simple opt-in community guidelines when it's actually a progression and balance overhaul.

Edit: And if what I'm saying doesn't seem to make sense, look at the differences between CTT (which is similar to what this started as) and SETI (what this is turning into).

 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Randazzo
I need to hire a proofreader

[Yemo]

12 minutes ago, Probus said:

Yemo, balanced tech trees like yours and mine for example are very important along with compatible contracts.  For me a new good tech tree is like starting KSP over with a totally new set of planets.  Very much a challenging "into the unknown".  Or am I misreading what you are trying to say.

I meant that CCF would not be a framework anymore, it would add nothing compared to just recommending a contract pack along our tech trees (which I already do at the moment).

Without balance of stock parts, what would be the added value compared to eg a statement sayting "I recommend x progression contract pack when you use ETT and those part mods are supported: ..."?.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Yemo

[inigma]

35 minutes ago, Yemo said:

@inigma, @RoverDude

Imho without (stock) part balancing, CCF would not add anything beyond selecting compatible tech tree and contracts, making the whole project pointless.

Any thoughts on my proposal to just balance stock parts (without much deviating on a whole from the current stock). Just stuff like fuel tanks around what is already percieved to be a kind of balance (in this case procedural parts values). Or the engines around what @stupid_chris did for ksp 0.24, eg bringing outliers like the poodle into line and making them useful even when using tweakscale.

There would be no MM patches to mod parts from the CCF side. That would be totally up to the (part) modder, so it is opt-in.

 

Thus CCF is a set of "standards", and modders (tech tree, contracts, parts) can decide whether they want to adhere to them or not. Those standards are only applied to stock (parts, tech tree, contracts). If a mod is compatible, it is listed as such, if not, it simply is not listed. No dabbling into mods.

 

edit: Just like CTT, Community Resource Pack and so on do set standards and may change stock, but it is up to the modders if they want to opt-in.

 

So offer to tech tree makers and contract authors a CCF Certified badge and thread listing and to mod authors a CCF Compatible badge?

And CCF offers a stock part balance download and recommended balance spreadsheet for part modder guidance?

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[Yemo]

21 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

CTT and CRP add to stock, they don't change it. Not using either of them doesn't make a mod incompatible with them; it simply means not taking advantage of their extended resources/tech tree. Altering the stock game takes this outside a simple opt-in set of standards and turns it into a progression overhaul of it's own, creating conflicts for mods that choose not to rework balance to suit it.

For the people who put this together and other modders, it's not a huge deal right off the bat to be incompatible with each other, but it can become a problem down the line if someone were to download a non-compliant part pack and find that the engines or parts don't perform as advertised because they also have this project installed and it alters the fuel-mass ratio of stock tanks (and who knows what else will get altered as this progresses). One can't expect the majority of end-users to do anything but go to the mod author to ask why their parts aren't working as expected.

And as I said before, there's nothing wrong with that sort of a project at all, just don't do it under the guise of some simple opt-in community guidelines when it's actually a progression and balance overhaul.

 

 

 

The mod parts would not be altered. With regards to fuel tanks it would just be like someone installing procedural tanks and only using those, and then complaining that the parts of someone elses mod do not work anymore since the procedural fuel tanks have different content per volume ratios than stock tanks...

That makes no sense.

edti: But hey, I m not pressing for CCF to work in a particular fashion or at all. It just seems that some people want a career with some form of balance and some part modders do not want their mods to be changed by MM statements.

My suggestions makes both possible, rebalancing stock, no changes to part mods. I thought that this was the point of the thread, finding something that works, respecting everyones interest. Part of that is of course that it is not part of someones interest to specify what has to be someone elses interest, or putting their interests above everyone elses.

But hey, not my problem in this case, it is up to the community.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Yemo

[Randazzo]

5 minutes ago, Yemo said:

 

The mod parts would not be altered. With regards to fuel tanks it would just be like someone installing procedural tanks and only using those, and then complaining that the parts of someone elses mod do not work anymore since the procedural fuel tanks have different content per volume ratios than stock tanks...

That makes no sense.

 

Procedural tanks don't change the stock tanks. That's not even remotely the same thing.

17 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Edit: And if what I'm saying doesn't seem to make sense, look at the differences between CTT (which is similar to what this started as) and SETI (what this is turning into).

I'm also (still) not saying don't do it, it's just that the nature of the project has changed.

Why do I care? I started reading this thread with great interest, and ended with great disappointment. Does that matter? Probably not.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Randazzo

[Yemo]

9 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Procedural tanks don't change the stock tanks. That's not even remotely the same thing.

I'm also (still) not saying don't do it, it's just that the nature of the project has changed.

Why do I care? I started reading this thread with great interest, and ended with great disappointment. Does that matter? Probably not.

What about FAR, or DeadlyReentry or RemoteTech?

DeadlyReentry was the de facto community standard before 1.0, while it introduced massive changes to stock.

[inigma]

15 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Procedural tanks don't change the stock tanks. That's not even remotely the same thing.

I'm also (still) not saying don't do it, it's just that the nature of the project has changed.

Why do I care? I started reading this thread with great interest, and ended with great disappointment. Does that matter? Probably not.

I think a consensus course to take CCF is to do the following:

1. Offer tech trees certification with the outlined progression.

2. Offer contract packs certified with the outlined progression and overlap compatibility.

3. Offer a recommended standards list of values for part mods - keeping it as basic as possible and assuming stock values remain unchanged. 

4. Allow for part mod and balance mod authors to acknowledge CCF compatibility. Essentially this would give balance mod authors a framework to be creative and offer their balance visions as seperate creative mod offerings.

Does this seem like the consensus?

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[Randazzo]

2 minutes ago, inigma said:

I think a consensus course to take CCF is to do the following:

1. Offer tech trees certification with the outlined progression.

2. Offer contract packs certified with the outlined progression and overlap compatibility.

3. Offer a recommended standards list of values for part mods - keeping it as basic as possible and assuming stock values remain unchanged. 

4. Allow for part mod and balance mod authors to acknowledge CCF compatibility.

Does this seem like the consensus?

This outlines a great platform for a community project, yes.

[Probus]

4 minutes ago, inigma said:

I think a consensus course to take CCF is to do the following:

1. Offer tech trees certification with the outlined progression.

2. Offer contract packs certified with the outlined progression and overlap compatibility.

3. Offer a recommended standards list of values for part mods - keeping it as basic as possible and assuming stock values remain unchanged. 

4. Allow for part mod and balance mod authors to acknowledge CCF compatibility.

Does this seem like the consensus?

It does to me.  But I'm easy

[Yemo]

@inigma

If stock values remain unchanged, what are those standards based on and how does it make sense to suggest balancing part mods along standards while leaving stock parts wildly differentiating from those standards?

If you build straight on top of a lopsided foundation, the building will still be as lopsided as before. Thus no benefit of building straight up anyway as long as the foundation is not in order.

[Probus]

We could always move the unbalance

Just now, Yemo said:

@inigma

If stock values remain unchanged, what are those standards based on and how does it make sense to suggest balancing part mods along standards while leaving stock parts wildly differentiating from those standards?

If you build straight on top of a lopsided foundation, the building will still be as lopsided as before. Thus no benefit of building straight up anyway as long as the foundation is not in order.

We could always move the "unbalanced" parts to the ends of the tech tree.  That's where the magic fairy dust lives anyway.

[Yemo]

5 minutes ago, Probus said:

We could always move the unbalance

We could always move the "unbalanced" parts to the ends of the tech tree.  That's where the magic fairy dust lives anyway.

edit: Well, if it is the majority vote to build a straight tower on a lopsided foundation (and then possibly seal off the foundation,) I'll rest my case.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Yemo