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)

[inigma]

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.

I agree that some stock imbalances make it difficult to recommend values. But we have to start somewhere. Let's start with at least documenting the basic values and provide recommendations for part modders on the parts that can be recommended. Lets keep it simple at first, gather momentum as the project gets adopted... and finally use this effort as a catalyst to convince Squad to balance parts with our community recommendations.

Modders right now just want recommendations when publishing their part to be near in line with stock values. That guidance is not easily available at the moment. Let's at least start offering guidance. When we talk about stock part imbalances, lets bring our recommendations to Squad so they can be changed with our feedback as a whole community. If you as a balance mod author want to move ahead with offering stock balance config changes, go for it. Offer your changes as your balance mod and offer it compatible with CCF values if they are reasonably close. Doable?

[Randazzo]

Just now, Yemo said:

Well, if it is the majority vote to build a straight tower on a lopsided foundation, I'll rest my case.

Stock parts should always be the baseline. They aren't "unbalanced" unless you change the baseline to something else, in which case that needs to be the focus.

In what way are part changes even necessary to provide the desired progression?

[inigma]

@Yemo can you fire up a shared spreadsheet detailing current stock values and note your change recommendations for values you think should be changed?

@Probus @Yemo can you guys go through your tech trees and rearrange as necessary nodes to allow CCF progression?

[Yemo]

7 minutes ago, inigma said:

I agree that some stock imbalances make it difficult to recommend values. But we have to start somewhere. Let's start with at least documenting the basic values and provide recommendations for part modders on the parts that can be recommended. Lets keep it simple at first, gather momentum as the project gets adopted... and finally use this effort as a catalyst to convince Squad to balance parts with our community recommendations.

Modders right now just want recommendations when publishing their part to be near in line with stock values. That guidance is not easily available at the moment. Let's at least start offering guidance. When we talk about stock part imbalances, lets bring our recommendations to Squad so they can be changed with our feedback as a whole community. If you as a balance mod author want to move ahead with offering stock balance config changes, go for it. Offer your changes as your balance mod and offer it compatible with CCF values if they are reasonably close. Doable?

Hm, ok. That is something I can do.

I will not write a single MM statement, I ll just write down "standards" from my experience concerning procedural parts and tweakscale and so on, which can be implemented or happily ignored, that would be not my problem.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Randazzo said:

Stock parts should always be the baseline. They aren't "unbalanced" unless you change the baseline to something else, in which case that needs to be the focus.

In what way are part changes even necessary to provide the desired progression?

About the "balance" of stock parts, please see some examples I gave in this thread. Stock stats in some areas are wildly unbalanced, as anyone can see who spent a little time looking them up (eg the people from procedural parts).

It is hard to call something progression, when a part introduced later is strictly worse than a part introduced earlier.

[Randazzo]

21 minutes ago, Yemo said:

About the "balance" of stock parts, please see some examples I gave in this thread. Stock stats in some areas are wildly unbalanced, as anyone can see who spent a little time looking them up (eg the people from procedural parts).

It is hard to call something progression, when a part introduced later is strictly worse than a part introduced earlier.

I've seen those. Your comparisons are based on other mods. So as I said, either stock is the baseline, or you change it to something else (mods) and focus on that.

The progression we're talking about here is:

ground vehicles & boats > submersibles > aircraft > sounding rockets > unmanned rockets > probes > manned spacecraft > rover landings > manned landings > space stations > spaceplanes > bases > colonies > interstellar

I don't see that altering the stock baseline is in any way necessary for that, but this is a moot argument. An optional balance patch solves it, really.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Randazzo

[RoverDude]

1 hour 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. 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?

I support this.  It's reasonable, and makes sense.

Regarding stock balance - if specific parts have balance issues, the best thing is to note that issue in the suggestions forum in a constructive way (example:  with 1.0 we level set all of the LFO tanks to have the same fuel/mass ratios, etc. since some were out of whack).  But said balancing is really out of the scope of CCF.

Edited January 12, 2016 by RoverDude

[inigma]

Great! I'm glad we have a general consensus on this project from all participants

@Yemo or @Probus post their tech trees are ready, they are welcome to post the first CCF certified logo and I'll get to work on an Add-On Releases main thread.

 

For tech trees and contract packs (as well as strategy modes like @nightingale's Strategia), use the following to certify compatibility of your mod with the CCF progression tree:

 

For part modders who want to certify their parts as reasonably balanced against the recommendations presented in the CCF project, feel free to use:

Edited January 12, 2016 by inigma

[Yemo]

Github repository for part stat standards: https://github.com/Y3mo/CCF-Standards-for-Part-Stats

Just added some basic references for energy and fuel tanks, like 1EC/s = 1kW = 1kJ/s and 20EC/kg.

Let's see where and how this goes.

[inigma]

Just now, Yemo said:

Github repository for part stat standards: https://github.com/Y3mo/CCF-Standards-for-Part-Stats

Just added some basic references for energy and fuel tanks, like 1EC/s = 1kW = 1kJ/s and 20EC/kg.

Let's see where and how this goes.

I love it!.  I'll be drafting a main Add-On Releases thread shortly to present our project.

Thanks everyone!

[kcs123]

After some days of silence it seems that Kessler syndrome hit this thread (in a good way)

@inigma and @Yemo, I will try to help with part/tech tree balancing, but like may other folks here don't know how much free time I will have for this.
My Current real life is too unpredictable at the moment, but there is no rush for anything. CFF is not project for one man, it is good to see that many of people are willing to contribute, even if they don't have much time. But, when there is a will it is easier to find a way ...

1 hour ago, Yemo said:

Just added some basic references for energy and fuel tanks, like 1EC/s = 1kW = 1kJ/s and 20EC/kg.

Let's see where and how this goes.

That just reminded me how stock game failed to properly describe power source while they put much effort in everything else.
They tried to combine power and energy capacity in the one unit of measurment. It is like you want to compare two cars, one that have engine with 50 horse power and fuel tank with 100 liters and other car with 500 horse power and 10 liter fuel tank. Both can provide 5000 of "EC" that can be consumed over time.
We all know that car with 50 Hp engine can't properly pull heavy load not even on short distances, despite having large fuel tank and a car with 500 Hp engine can't haul even small load on long distances due to low fuel tank capacity.

Power sources or better said, chargers (solar panels, nuclear reactors, alternators on engines) can be described with maximum power in W or kW, but storage of electricity need to be described with two values kW for maximum power and kWh for stored energy. But that is out of scope for CFF, this is something that should be dealed from SQUAD side first.

I don't know if I will be much useful with writting down any MM patches, for now I will try to provide good feedback and suggestions what is good, what is bad and let Yemo and others who will do all hard work make final decision on it. Hopefully, I will be able to help more once i get more familiar with MM syntax and other stuff.

[inigma]

2 hours ago, Yemo said:

 

2 hours ago, Yemo said:

This is inigma. Apparently another forum bug. arg.

 

Anyways, 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.

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.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Greetings,

Since this discussion seems to be related for MODDERS it should also be related to players as we are the final product; or quality control for example.

I dont mind playing a role in that but there may be a slight problem; which I dont know if I can be a part of: working 2 KSP Platforms: 1) Real Solar System 2) Kerbal Space System.

I do play a realistic version of KSP and am having to use parts that may not be supported anymore; just because stock parts might not work the way we want them too, we can opt for a MODDED part to take it's place; unfortunately it takes from the STOCK or VANILLA game, and perhaps CFF is not concerned with the KSP Vanilla game?

KSP Vanilla slowly incorporates modded games I give them that; but their main focus is on playability and stability; and here we are with CFF and MODS going in the opposite direction; well not totally but sort of starting over and working 'with' KSP Stock and improving (?) it; well there again we arnt improving it, we are adding to it is probly a more appropriate term.

However we have to add what works.

I like the idea of certified tech tree nodes and it seems the patching format is good; please dont ask the MODDERS to change their Science Tree Node Locations for their parts in their cfg files (even though I have to change them in game that is a players choice, and remains the only viable solution for now; with a STOCK Tree!).

Since most of my older MODS are already converted as such, the Stock Tech Tree is fine. Extending it now involves more work for Modders, and how will this work if there is more than 1 Tech Tree? Not a good scenario and not everyone is going to align with one extended tech tree; where is all that science out there; someone said go to the sun and get all the science points and you are done; use the CTT and you have to go interplanetary; it boils down to how one plays the game.

The RTG is a good example of balance, changing STOCK parts to reflect a more real part; solar panels etc...let us say that we have 2 RTG's for parts; one that cheats and one that doesnt; then we have an option for the player to choose 'Realistic Play' over 'Stock Play' without touching KSP Stock ? Then we have the problem of more parts in the game; not good.

As for the 'Realistic Player', the only idea is to remove the offending stock parts which are replaced by the modded parts, and or modifying stock parts; I dont have a problem doing this as a 'Realistic Player'; and there arent that many parts; what if the RTG overheats in atmosphere though etc...any 'new modifications' to stock parts will have to be added to the part to complete it; not replace it.

Many realistic players may not want to mess with the CFG files either, but there may not be a way around this; it takes alot more time to set up a realistic working KSP game, and this is part of the soup.

My only problem is say balancing parts for KSP Space and Real Space???????? This is a whole new ballgame I have not ventured into; the game should be playable and not impossible; KSP RSS redsigns, rebalances the whole game; dont ask modders to do this and leave KSP player modded games behind; is this where MOD Balancing is going?

Commander Zeta