CKAN pros/cons

[Bombaatu]

I have heard 'CKAN is the best thing since sliced bread' and 'CKAN is bad-wrong! Do-not-use!' (these are paraphrases, of course).

I have used it and have not personally run into any issues. For those who believe it is bad - why? I have yet to see a coherent explanation of this.

[goldenpsp]

You have a fire suit right?  It's super late so I should be sleeping but I will try to do my best to distill the issue down as best I can.

First, CKAN isn't perfect (what is?).  When it works it works great.  When it fails, it can fail horribly.

While I don't think any tool is a substitute for understanding the process, that is often what happens.  People will use CKAN and as a result never learn how to actually install a mod manually.  So when it fails they have no idea how to troubleshoot.  They take to the forums for support, which leads to the next point.

Having a mod on CKAN may not actually be a result of the mod author.  Since its inception, many mods on CKAN were a result of someone other than the mod author creating the CKAN metadata.  So suddenly a mod author may find their thread filled with CKAN support requests when they in fact didn't even know their mod was on CKAN. So suddenly you have a mod author frustrated with something he had no control, or even knowledge of.

This, in my opinion, has been the biggest cause of CKAN backlash.

[Streetwind]

It's extra fun for a mod author who isn't involved with maintaining their own CKAN entries when he releases an update after weeks of grueling volunteer work, publishes it on three different download mirrors for everyone's convenience, and comes back the next day to discover that 80% of the responses read "You forgot to update CKAN! I can't play like this!"...

Or let's say that the mod author did put his mod on CKAN. Two months later he publishes an update, and goes to CKAN to tweak the metadata... Only to discover that community members have since changed it several times, neither asking nor notifying him. Oh, and by the way, the metadata spec changed four times since he last looked, so now he has to pore over the technical documentation to even understand what his own mod's metadata is doing!

I mean, having the community able to create and maintain metadata can be a good thing, too - if you are an author with limited time, you can just lean back, and someone else will do the work for you. Sweet! But it's a double-edged sword, because it's impossible for an author to keep control over their own mod's listing and relationships, and as soon as someone else (maybe even just the automatic spacedock parser script) creates metadata, everyone assumes it's the author's doing and responsibility.

 

Still, ultimately I think the KSP modding community is richer for the existence of CKAN. I may occasionally moan about it, but the advantages still outweigh the disadvantages. Especially for the players.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Streetwind

[p1t1o]

Tip-top-tip: When uninstalling a mod via CKAN, manually go into gamedata and remove the folder. CKAN sometimes leaves dome files behind which can cause headaches.

Other than that, use CKAN, the effort it saves you by keeping things in a nice list is more than enough to risk the extra headaches, most of the best mods function perfectly well, the above problem is the worst I have experienced.

[evileye.x]

CKAN is very good thing actually. Other than pain in the ass for some moders,  it's a very nice tool for players,  especially for new players.

I've got my >100 mods list with a help of CKAN.

[Kobymaru]

 

6 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

While I don't think any tool is a substitute for understanding the process, that is often what happens.  People will use CKAN and as a result never learn how to actually install a mod manually.  So when it fails they have no idea how to troubleshoot.  They take to the forums for support, which leads to the next point.

I wonder, do you say that about installers for windows programs too? Instead of clicking one single "install.exe" file, do you expect users to know how to extract libraries, set firewall rules, create the right folders and create the right registry keys?

I always viewed the "well you should know what you are doing" attitude kind of... elitist. You know how it works, and the mod author does, and that's great! But I feel that there is no good reason to exclude technically less versed people from installing windows programs or installing mods.

CKAN, and installers, packet repositories and "app stores" might be a huge PITA for authors and maintainers - but I believe they are crucial to offer access to mods/programs to a lot of people.

Seriously, could we all stop for a second and ponder if you would really tell your grandma that using the Android App store is bad, because she "doesn't understand the process" and "has no idea how to troubleshoot"?

 

I think that most of the controversy about CKAN stems from very different (and sometimes conflicting) interests and points of views of two groups of people:

1. Mod authors: Mod authors usually care only about "their" mod, because that's the mod that they have control over. They care a lot less about incompatibilities, or figuring out bugs in other mods. They also don't care about the ease of installation. Why would they? It's really easy! Just download from here, copy this there, that here, don't forget that dependency. They've done it a hundred times and don't get why people even bother with CKAN, because manual installation seems simpler.

2. Users: Users usually only care about their game, and about playing. They see a mod in the forums, or highlighted somewhere, and they just want to "play" it. They don't want to read installation instructions, they don't want to figure out dependencies or conflicts. Some users have dozens, maybe even a hundred of mods installed. Each and every single one of them is downloaded from a different location, has different folders, has different conventions, ... And the users are supposed to keep track of that?
What about updates? Even with KSP-AVC, keeping your game up-to-date is a nightmare. Imagine, you want to update 10 mods! 10 different websites, unpack 10 zips, delete the right folders, extract the right folders, and OH NO don't forget dependencies!

These two points of view are inherently incompatible, and will always cause troubles.

What CKAN *aims* to do is provide a buffer between those two groups. And well, buffers often enough take heat from both sides. And that's what's happening.

 

6 hours ago, goldenpsp said:

Having a mod on CKAN may not actually be a result of the mod author.  Since its inception, many mods on CKAN were a result of someone other than the mod author creating the CKAN metadata.  So suddenly a mod author may find their thread filled with CKAN support requests when they in fact didn't even know their mod was on CKAN. So suddenly you have a mod author frustrated with something he had no control, or even knowledge of.

This, in my opinion, has been the biggest cause of CKAN backlash.

Well how else? CKAN is supposed to be *for users*. Sometimes, mod authors don't care about CKAN. Sometimes they care a little but then MIA for months. CKAN is supposed to be a more or less complete repository of (open source) mods. It's not a good idea to make everything dependent on the authors. That's what this whole "abstraction layer" of CKAN is actually for.

[Tex_NL]

CKAN is an unnecessary evil! It can be extremely useful in keeping installed mods up to date but there is nothing, and I do mean absolutely nothing, CKAN does that can not be done just as easy and just as quickly manually.
KSP is extremely mod friendly. Installing or removing mods can not be any simpler. All you will need is the most basic knowledge of files structure. For people that grew up in the DOS or early Windows era these fundamentals are second nature. Sadly modern OS give the impression this has become obsolete. Nothing is farther from the truth. The basics are and always will be important. Do not rely on 'advanced' tools if you don't know the basics.

I do not use CKAN. Not now, not ever!
Anything CKAN does you can do better.

[obsidian_x]

I don't mind ckan, I'm a player though, not a modder.  

I was a purest at the start, I would download a mod, and install it manually.  But then I'm pretty lazy, so would never update a mod.  I guess it depends if you're a "must have latest" or "if it aint broke don't fix it" kind of person, you can then use ckan to update before you run the game.  Once you get more than 5 or so mods manual updates can be a tedious affair.

There's no standard location to get the mod - ie github, spacedock, curse etc etc.

There's no easy(tm) way to know when a mod is updated (although some can auto update).

Looking at the folders in gamedata you can't easily tell what the mod is.  

On the other hand:

Ckan doesn't have dev builds (so you might wait longer to get a mod after a game release)

It will not update manually installed mods (I can see the reasons though)

Occasionally I get weird exceptions etc when downloading/updating (although never broken my game)

Edited June 17, 2016 by obsidian_x
clarity

[goldenpsp]

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

I wonder, do you say that about installers for windows programs too? Instead of clicking one single "install.exe" file, do you expect users to know how to extract libraries, set firewall rules, create the right folders and create the right registry keys?

I always viewed the "well you should know what you are doing" attitude kind of... elitist. You know how it works, and the mod author does, and that's great! But I feel that there is no good reason to exclude technically less versed people from installing windows programs or installing mods.

CKAN, and installers, packet repositories and "app stores" might be a huge PITA for authors and maintainers - but I believe they are crucial to offer access to mods/programs to a lot of people.

Seriously, could we all stop for a second and ponder if you would really tell your grandma that using the Android App store is bad, because she "doesn't understand the process" and "has no idea how to troubleshoot"?

I'm sure there is a technical term for when someone takes one argument and then attempts to extend it to everything, but I cannot think of it now.  Without writing volumes I'll just put these few things here to try and illustrate.

First there is a vast difference between most applications and their associated installers VS KSP mods.  Many of these things are very regimented with stable rules on how and where things get installed and therefore installers can work pretty smoothly.  If you have ever dealt with iOS app development you would know just how strict Apple is in this regard to ensure their installer works near flawlessly.

Contrast that with KSP mods, which have pretty much no structure or guidelines other than "it goes in the gamedata folder"  There are no guidelines on how mods should work together, or handle dependencies with other mods.  You could say it is the Wild West of programming.

In short, if installers for windows programs, smartphones, etc worked as flawlessly as CKAN, then yes people should have a better understanding of what's going on under the hood.

Also, on that note, when "understanding" mod installation for KSP consists mostly of "the mod goes under gamedata" you neither have to be terribly technical nor elite to take a few moments to understand that.

And yea I have pondered that.  As I said above both smartphone platforms worked hard to make their installers work as flawlessly as possible.  The better argument for what you are trying to illustrate is that if my grandma came to me and said she wanted to root her phone, I'd say you really should know what you are doing first.

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Well how else? CKAN is supposed to be *for users*. Sometimes, mod authors don't care about CKAN.

I think you missed the whole point of what I was getting at.  The issue is that modders get hit with CKAN issues when they didn't even know their mod was on CKAN.  So it breeds ill will with modders as they now seem expected to troubleshoot CKAN, when they may not have even known their mod was on CKAN, or even how CKAN works.

[Diazo]

Overall, I personally see CKAN as a good thing, but it's not overwhelmingly so.

As a mod author who's been hit with a lot of these issues, CKAN's issues mostly boil down to the fact that it's too open.

It's all good to open the CKAN up to allow anyone to add a mod to it as that gets more mods (and so faster adoption of CKAN) to happen, but it also means people who don't know what they are doing start messing around things break in very short order.

3 times I've had people "help" by going to CKAN and updating my mods but breaking them instead. This is the biggest strike against CKAN, as a mod author I can't control my mods on it, all I can do is keep an eye on it and revert any breaking changes made as soon as I notice them.

The other strike against CKAN is that there is no dependency control with other mods. While it does a good job of checking which version of a mod work on a specific KSP version, there is no way for a mod author to say "I need this version of this other mod for my mod to work". CKAN just always installs the latest version of a mod. I'm pretty sure this is why FAR and CKAN have had so many issues playing nice with one another (or at least one of the reasons).

On the plus side, it does work most of the time and makes installing/uninstalling mods so much easier for the average player. As such it does make for a better game experience so I do consider CKAN's positives to outweigh the negatives.

D.

[Stone Blue]

On 6/17/2016 at 9:02 AM, Kobymaru said:

I wonder, do you say that about installers for windows programs too? Instead of clicking one single "install.exe" file, do you expect users to know how to extract libraries, set firewall rules, create the right folders and create the right registry keys?

I always viewed the "well you should know what you are doing" attitude kind of... elitist. You know how it works, and the mod author does, and that's great! But I feel that there is no good reason to exclude technically less versed people from installing windows programs or installing mods.

CKAN, and installers, packet repositories and "app stores" might be a huge PITA for authors and maintainers - but I believe they are crucial to offer access to mods/programs to a lot of people.

Seriously, could we all stop for a second and ponder if you would really tell your grandma that using the Android App store is bad, because she "doesn't understand the process" and "has no idea how to troubleshoot"?

Sorry, but I have to STRONGLY disagree with this stance... At least as presented specifically to this discussion

This is almost apples to oranges...

You're citing VERY complicated, in-depth, worst case, Holy Cow....

As far as installing KSP mods, Squad has made a VERY simple way to install mods to the game:

Paste a /GameData folder containing the /<modname> folder, into the KSP_win folder... Click yes when asked to merge the folders in the popup... DONE

How much simpler can THAT get?... I DO say that if you dont know how to extract an archive (.zip/rar), or copy/paste folders, or understand ABSOLUTE basic folder structure, then YES, you have NO business modding KSP... Much less even using a computer... lol

And YES, I have told my MOTHER, and a friends mother, nicely, but yes, they have no business using a computer, or smart phone, when they cant even grasp the concept of single-click vs dbl click on a mouse...Or single-tap vs dbl tap on a touchscreen... Theres just a point where if you dont get simple basics, then yeah, maybe you shouldnt be trying to run when you cant even stand...

I mean, if someone cant grasp the basic concept (or ability) to drive a car, are you gonna still let them drive that car, on public roads, just because they CAN, and its elitist for the rest of us to tell them NO...??

There, I went wide with that one too...

Edited June 18, 2016 by Stone Blue

[cantab]

The fact is several major modders are against CKAN and decline to support installations done using it. Ferram and I believe Roverdude have adopted that stance. Even with modders who don't have such an anti-CKAN stance, chances are if you have a problem and you used CKAN you'll be asked to reinstall the mod manually and see if it persists. For me this makes CKAN untenable to use.

At the moment the sad reality is KSP has no good solution for mod management. Doing it manually is being stuck in the dark ages and doesn't scale. CKAN has too tainted a record I feel. KSP-AVC offers only basic and limited functionality. Modpacks are not a thing with KSP. Curse haven't moved in yet, and most of the community wouldn't really want them too. Steam Workshop is unlikely to ever be supported, and based on my experience with Cities: Skylines it has shortcomings anyway.

What do I think a good solution would look like? Well I think it wouldn't use release .zips as-is like CKAN tries to. It needs a way to robustly handle things, including dependencies and conflicts between mods. I wonder if it would be possible to make use of one of the formats already used in Linux software packaging, where a lot of that kind of stuff already has solutions. A good solution also needs to be friendly to the modders - don't burden them with excessive work to create packages, and don't cause issues that aren't present with a manual install. And I would venture that it shouldn't try to rush to the update - new versions of mods warrant checking, both of themselves and where practical for compatibility. Major well-respected mods have had updated versions with serious bugs before now.

[Skalou]

Even if know how to install mod, I am using CKAN, and like it very much,

maybe not perfect but good enought for me, i have far less troubles by installing/updating them with C-KAN (only once, i needed to uninstall a mod manually before reinstalling it, but it was in KSP 0.90) than manually ( wrong folder install, missed a needed dependency, not updated,...)

For (Sir!) Roverdude ,i don't know his point if view on it, but a lot of his mod are available via this ( and FAR too),

i understand the point of view of modders demanding to reinstall it manually in case of any troubles, it's a logical step and easy to do.

So if you are a C-KAN guy and reading this, thank you !

I hope the best in it's developpment to make it a must-have both for users and modders.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Skalou

[h0yer]

Oddly enough, it never even ran on my machine, it just bugs out on executing the executable^^

So I resorted to always manually installing and updating stuff, since several years now, especially in the case of this whole RealStuff(TM) endeavour, never encoutered a single issue on any install, even the half baked ones work^^ (half baked RVE)

 

I have this 'rule' about external applications:

If they reduce the amount of thinking process necessary to fulfill the general task, I don't use them. I like my thinking processes, I like hearing myself think^^ I even argue with myself while doing it

If they reduce the amount of repetative dull clickety, I use them. I'm physically lazy. Very lazy...

 

C'mon, I mean, it's just dragging and dropping labelled icons between labelled rectangular windows/more icons, you just need the very basics of computer haptics (moving a mouse/hitting buttons), the ability to read, and basic understanding about what goes where, and the will to read instructions, FAQs, how2stuffs, guides, and walkthroughs

 

To reduce it further down to it's very essence:

A handfull of named files dispersed over a handfull of named folders^

 

peace

[RoverDude]

18 hours ago, Skalou said:

Even if know how to install mod, I am using CKAN, and like it very much,

maybe not perfect but good enought for me, i have far less troubles by installing/updating them with C-KAN (only once, i needed to uninstall a mod manually before reinstalling it, but it was in KSP 0.90) than manually ( wrong folder install, missed a needed dependency, not updated,...)

For (Sir!) Roverdude ,i don't know his point if view on it, but a lot of his mod are available via this ( and FAR too),

i understand the point of view of modders demanding to reinstall it manually in case of any troubles, it's a logical step and easy to do.

So if you are a C-KAN guy and reading this, thank you !

I hope the best in it's developpment to make it a must-have both for users and modders.

I support my own metadata as a necessary evil and out of self defense.  And it still has issues.  Updates are not instantaneous, there is no opt-in for partial updates, it totally messes things up if you mix manual and CKAN installs, you have 'random people on the internet' changing mods, etc.

Where CKAN completely (and I mean completely) dropped the ball was in how they chose to go about adoption.  Rather than have it opt-in, they allowed the players, not the mod author, to force your mod into CKAN and you got to deal with the headaches.  And at least in the case of Ferram, totally refused to de-list, even at the modder's request.  Heck, they've refused to delete several dead mods of mine despite asking nicely a couple of times (I've pretty much given up).

Yes.  CKAN is geared towards the user as their customer, to the detriment of the modders.  Which sounds fine if you're just a consumer of content.  But IMO is the wrong approach.  Content consumers need content creators (modders), not the other way around (i.e. without other users, we'd just enjoy our content and perhaps share it with a couple of friends).  Systems that annoy / discourage content creators tend to be counterproductive.

Personally, I recommend KSP-AVC.  It's 100% opt in, rock solid (any issue I have ever had has been my own fault), does not force upgrades, and makes troubleshooting installs a breeze.  @cybutek took the right approach with that one, and it shows.

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by RoverDude

[Stone Blue]

I totally agree with RoverDude... The thing with CKAN is that it makes it TOO easy to mod KSP... It dumbs EVERYTHING down... Adding a mod to KSP is very easy and simple. Anyone who wants to add mods to KSP should at least know how to manually install and remove mods. I can see the advantage of having 100 mods installed, and having a method that takes the tediousness out of having to manually check for updates all the time...

Its kind of like the timeless argument for/against MechJeb... Some people complain that it makes it too easy to fly in KSP, and keeps people from learning how themselves... Where as theres a good argument for autopilot, for advanced users, who DO know how to do, manually, everything that MJ does, yet use it & like it because it removes the tediousness of basic tasks..

I think it's been detrimental in the fact that its catered to the laziness of mod consumers. Go ahead and flame me, but the biggest argument I've seen FOR CKAN, is that it saves people from having to actually scan thru the OP of a mod release, to take note of any mod dependencies and conflicts. It also makes it so people cant even take the first step of basic mod troubleshooting, and puts all the onus on the mod devs, or someone else in the community to step up and do it FOR them...

I think its kind of like the movie Idiocracy... How much do you want to dumb things down?... If people just use CKAN, and dont even bother to see how simple it is to add mods to KSP, and dont bother to grasp the basic concept, it can actually keep people from realising how simple it is to make an actual mod.... So we could conceeivably have consumers, but no one to actually make mods, or even fix them...

Edited June 20, 2016 by Stone Blue

[ferram4]

14 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Where CKAN completely (and I mean completely) dropped the ball was in how they chose to go about adoption.  Rather than have it opt-in, they allowed the players, not the mod author, to force your mod into CKAN and you got to deal with the headaches.  And at least in the case of Ferram, totally refused to de-list, even at the modder's request.  Heck, they've refused to delete several dead mods of mine despite asking nicely a couple of times (I've pretty much given up).

For some context on my problems with CKAN, I was ambivalent about my mods being listed initially (basically, I expected things to not go well, but I saw no reason to complain so long as CKAN did not cause problems).  I was told by one of the CKAN contributors that if I did have a problem, I could ask, and they would de-list the mods.  FAR v0.15 comes out, and due to CKAN's metadata being incorrect for that version (CKAN has no archive/metadata error checking of any form for mod updates) CKAN pushes out a completely broken install at the same time that I am attempting to bugfix a complete overhaul of the aero model.  Bug reports that I need to read to fix things get buried by CKAN-only install issues that are being reported by people that I knew never had install issues before.  So in one swoop, CKAN caused more install issues for me than I ever got before on the one thing where they were supposed to make things easier for modders (at least when they were pretending they cared about modders).

A little over a month later, after fixing those FAR issues I'm mulling over asking FAR to be de-listed over the entire mess, though not sure either way.  I look at the CKAN policies, and lo and behold, they've declared that non-All Rights Reserved mods shall not be de-listed.  A month after CKAN causes hundreds of install errors on one of the most-used mods authored by one of the more outspoken critics of CKAN.  I demanded it be de-listed simply on principle at this point.

So yeah, I have a few problems with CKAN.  Unlike RD, who handles his metadata for his own sanity, I'm ticked enough at them that I refuse to do that.  I don't think it's right that CKAN can cause issues for you and then get you to handle the metadata for them under threat of more metadata errors and issues if you don't.

[Stone Blue]

DELETED

Edited June 21, 2016 by Stone Blue

[Diazo]

Okay, this is getting rather heated.

@Stone Blue I was peripherally involved in the discussion when ferram made his original request to have FAR delisted and it generated pages and pages of discussion at the time.

The short answer is that the CKAN staff were able to make a logical case for why they would have a policy of not de-listing mods, it's not a case of them being flat out wrong.

How strong their case is and whether you agree or disagree with that policy is going to be personal opinion.

However, that means this discussion has already been had. I can link the previous discussion if you want to read the positions for yourself, but otherwise I think the question posed at the start of this thread has been answered and would ask that this be dropped before people already entrenched in their position from the previous discussion use this thread to start yelling at each other about it.

D.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Diazo

[swjr-swis]

On 6/18/2016 at 3:22 PM, Stone Blue said:

Paste a /GameData folder containing the /<modname> folder, into the KSP_win folder... Click yes when asked to merge the folders in the popup... DONE

Except of course when merging is exactly the wrong thing to do. Maybe not that simple after all?

[Tex_NL]

4 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Except of course when merging is exactly the wrong thing to do. Maybe not that simple after all?

More often than not in those cases the mod author will clearly state in the installation instructions to first delete previous instalments. If you do not know how to read or how to delete a folder you have no place on a computer.
Removing a previous instalment when updating is pretty much ALWAYS the best option anyway. And if not your back-up will revert everything to how it was.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Tex_NL

[RoverDude]

9 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Except of course when merging is exactly the wrong thing to do. Maybe not that simple after all?

Replace with 'Delete old version first then copy' and you've hit the 99.9% use case.  Use KSP-AVC, and you're at 100%.

Regarding de-listing, etc.  - this is still a very active topic, and one that I believe CKAN continues to step wrongly in.  Take this little tidbit from the current CKAN thread from a member of the CKAN project.  

"It's worth remembering also that not selecting the CKAN option on Spacedock does not mean that the mod won't be listed on CKAN. If a CKAN user asks for a given mod to be listed, we will generally do so, barring some legal block. Since you have licensed Larinax under CC-BY-SA-NC, you've given us irrevocable permission to distribute it."

This is not neighborly.  It encourages restrictive licenses, and ultimately pushes more modders into actively opposing CKAN.

Edited June 21, 2016 by RoverDude

[Stone Blue]

9 minutes ago, Diazo said:

@Stone BlueOkay, this is getting rather heated.

Sorry, I dont see that its getting "heated".... It's still civil, and no one is being singled out... I just think its a matter of strong opinions being stated... And because the last few of those opinions are negative toward what is considered by the majority of the community to be a positive thing, people will start to get their undies in a bind...

13 minutes ago, Diazo said:

The short answer is that the CKAN staff were able to make a logical case for why they would have a policy of not de-listing mods, it's not a case of them being flat out wrong.

How strong their case is and whether you agree or disagree with that policy is going to be personal opinion.

I NEVER stated they were WRONG... I just basically stated I thought they had not given the ethical aspects full consideration, and I wanted to point out, not just where CKAN is concerned, but to anyone thinking about picking up, or forking a mod on their own, that they should also ask themselves is it the RIGHT thing to do, and what is the RIGHT way to go about it...

I totally agree, this is all personal opinion, as its CLEARLY not a matter of facts, since CKAN is well within their rights and forum rules to do what they are doing, and to voice their case and reasoning... Its clearly all personal opinions on whether people choose to support, and use, as well as vocalise why they either do so, or do not...

I will now delete my previous post, in order to keep things from escalating, and to keep those with thin skins from being offended, as I MAY have been a bit pointed in the last paragraph of my post.

I also ask, that if anyone has quoted ANY part of said post, before I removed it, PLEASE remove it from your quote...

I DO want to state, @Diazo, that I have the utmost respect for you...

[swjr-swis]

1 minute ago, Tex_NL said:

More often than not in those cases the mod author will clearly state in the installation instructions to first delete previous instalments. If you do not know how to read or how to delete a folder you have no place on a computer.

Like I said: not so simple after all. Now you have to search and check every mod release thread for specific instructions regarding each update, that may (or may not!) be stated in the OP.

For one mod, 5 mods, 10 mods.. perhaps doable. For 50 mods? 100? 200? Updating each at their own random moments and may or may not have exceptions in the 'very simple' install procedure to take into account.

[Stone Blue]

11 minutes ago, swjr-swis said:

Except of course when merging is exactly the wrong thing to do. Maybe not that simple after all?

That would be a case of where it would be very beneficial to actually pull up the mod release thread OP, and actually scan thru it for that information?

Maybe it IS that simple after all...