About the 'this should be stock' argument

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Fearless Son said:

I remember reading something Squad said about their default response when anyone asks them "Will you make feature X more realistic?" is to ask themselves, "Would that make the game more fun?"

Which, tbh, makes no sense since "fun" is entirely subjective, as you stated.  Would have been better for them to ask "Would this fit the paradigm of the game we're trying to make?"

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, Alshain said:

As mentioned, it's often a conflict between more than one mod.  This is especially true for mods that alter stock parts because one mod may not be able to predict what another will change.

Which to me is one of the best reasons to make some mods stock.

1 hour ago, regex said:

Which, tbh, makes no sense since "fun" is entirely subjective, as you stated.  Would have been better for them to ask "Would this fit the paradigm of the game we're trying to make?"

In general "fun" is subjective. In this case, though, "fun" can pretty easily be defined by "What HarvesteR finds fun" or "What a group of Squad employees agree is fun," which pretty much is exactly the paradigm of the game they're trying to make.

Edited January 13, 2016 by 5thHorseman
typo

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

In general "fun" is subjective. In this case, though, "fun" can pretty easily be defined by "What HarvesteR finds fun" or "What a group of Squad employees agree is fun," which pretty much is exactly the paradigm of the game they're trying to make.

Right, but my version avoids the idiotic forum fights about what Squad means by "fun".

[Superfluous J]

17 minutes ago, regex said:

Right, but my version avoids the idiotic forum fights about what Squad means by "fun".

Meh. We'll just fight over something else.

[Red Iron Crown]

The reason for "should be stock" for me is this:

Yellow, green and blue are enjoyable parts of KSP for me, red is not. Any feature added to stock that permits me to stop using a mod makes the red area smaller, as long as the stock version is as fun for me as the mod it replaces.

I definitely agree that stock implementations are often simpler than mods, so it's good that we have alternatives. Some of the atmospheric-focused players prefer FAR to stock aero, some of the base/station-building players like more complex resource mods, career-focused players like contract and science mods, etc. This is sort of the best of both worlds, players can dial up the complexity of the areas of the game that are important to them while leaving the parts that they care less about in the stock form.

[Tweeker]

    One thing I see is the ever annoying "just use a mod" argument that is often brought out when making suggestions.

[rkman]

On 11-1-2016 at 7:07 PM, Evanitis said:

So... what's the merit of a stock feature compared to a mod that does the same perfectly well?

What would be the merit of having arguably essential/important game features not integrated into the game? 

[Evanitis]

Well, if it's arguably essential / important, the merit of it being a mod is that the devs can work on definately essential / important features instead.

 

Though it's just my opinion, and since I started this thread, I know it's a selfish one. I also don't think that just because two people have compltete opposite opinions, one of them has to be wrong. Let's agree to disagree.

[Pthigrivi]

I generally play stock but goof around with mods from time to time. They're fun, but often get a bit weedy. There's already a lot going on this game. Its also time consuming. For anyone who's busy with other things it can feel tough investing hours into something and not really getting very far. I love KAS and TAC but I'd prefer to see them in a simplified, fully integrated form. USI-LS is close, but the greenhouses are a bit finicky and I'd love to truly live off the land. I also tend to think habitation modules without a simple habitation mechanic doesn't really add much beyond some RP color. For me the question is how could these types of features be brought in in the cleanest, most streamlined fashion that still adds that layer of thinking and possibility to a cohesive game. 

Other mods like KER and KAC especially really should find some kind of implementation, as they are themselves big time-savers. I don't think we necessarily need all of the information KER provides, but some basics like dV and TWR would hugely cut down on repeat missions, help players improve faster, and overall shift time away from frustrating failures toward more fun, productive missions. These kinds of things could pretty easily be staged into building upgrades if Squad was afraid of overwhelming new players with too much data. Its one thing if you run out of fuel in on the surface of the Mun and have to send a rescue mission, its another if you run out of fuel around Jool with an orbitally constructed mother ship because you had no information about transfer windows or how much dV you had on board. 

[HebaruSan]

On 1/11/2016 at 0:07 PM, Evanitis said:

So... what's the merit of a stock feature compared to a mod that does the same perfectly well?

I always thought the advantage was that new players don't have to find, download, and separately install something with universal appeal and no downsides, thus improving the initial gameplay experience and relieving some of the support burden on the community.

Parts of KER are a decent example. If someone asks for early-learning-curve help with a mission on the forum, the responses invariably recommend installing this or a similar mod so the launch and burns can be planned properly and the stock maneuver node delta V readout can be interpreted meaningfully. If a certain tool is necessary to accomplish basic tasks in the software (or even to reach a moderate level of proficiency), it's reasonable to suggest including it in the main package. See also BetterBurnTime, which makes no changes other than to make an already-included readout more accurate and useful, and could almost be considered a bug fix.

Admittedly I've seen that statement made when this standard clearly was not met (e.g., life support and realistic scale probably boost the difficulty level beyond what SQUAD intends to offer for mass appeal), but it's where I personally would draw the line. Despite that, none of the above should be interpreted as me requesting that any particular feature or mod be added or incorporated by SQUAD. The game is already winning awards and doing quite well at convincing new people to buy and play, which ultimately has to be their primary concern, and I'm content with an ecosystem of mods. Modders can afford to scratch personal itches, but developers need to make sure the time they spend is cost effective.

[MalfunctionM1Ke]

I say that a lot.

Basically when I say "[blank] should be stock", I mean that I really would like to see Squads idea of something implemented inside the game.

Mostly because I think:
- it would make a great addition to the Game.
- I find the game-mechanic very interesting
- it makes the entry into KSP a bit easier

Edited January 15, 2016 by MalfunctionM1Ke