Modpacks, should they be banned?

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, Frybert said:

Let's not derail this into a ckan debate please. (Discussion of ckan relevant to the topic at hand is fine, let's just not turn this into a full on ckan debate)

I wasn't meaning that, but feel free to move it to a new thread if you feel it's best

[Norcalplanner]

My vote is to ban them, but it needs to be done smartly. We need to be able to allow things like GPP, RO, MKS, and similar well-planned mods which include dependencies and optional extras (with the permission of the authors of the bundled mods) while preventing the sort of mod packs which create a lot of headaches for everyone.

[linuxgurugamer]

So a question about the definition of a modpack.

When one mod depends on another, quite often the dependency is bundled in, to make it easier to install.   This isn't a problem with CKAN, since it ignores those extra directories.  Would this practice be included in the ban?

[hieywiey]

Doing it by putting a bunch of mods in a .zip file definitely should be banned, but I think that making a mod-list through something like CKAN that downloads mods externally should be fair game, since, 1. Users will get the latest versions, reducing the number of outdated bug reports, and 2. Mod creators would have the choice of putting their mod on said platform, giving them a choice of whether or not they want their mod to be in modpacks. Something like a hybrid between Minecraft's Technic Launcher and CKAN, taking Technic's easy-to-use GUI, modpack database and search function with CKAN's mod version checker would probably be a good fit for this kind of thing.

[DStaal]

Just as a point of discussion - and a couple of edge cases for people to debate on: It's worth thinking about how any proposed rule would handle things like USI's suite of mods.  RoverDude packages them separately - including dependencies, which for MKS includes (portions of) Firespitter, Configurable Containers, and Ground Construction.  (As well as the obvious Module Manager.)  He then has been occasionally releasing a combined pack with all of the USI mods bundled together - as well as their dependencies. 

I get the issue with modpacks, just wanted to bring up what is likely the edge case any rule has to handle - People just slapping a bunch of mods together without much thought and without doing things like looking at the licenses definitely shouldn't be allowed.  RoverDude's USI Constellation Pack probably should be.  Exactly how to draw that line could be tricky, depending on where it's placed.

[sal_vager]

56 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

So a question about the definition of a modpack.

When one mod depends on another, quite often the dependency is bundled in, to make it easier to install.   This isn't a problem with CKAN, since it ignores those extra directories.  Would this practice be included in the ban?

I think it's fairly simple, if you're releasing your own mod or a mod you maintain, even if it has dependencies or extras you still call it a mod.

You might not be the best modder but you have respect for others, and you are committed to supporting the mod you release.

(The 'you' in the above is the example modder, not you specifically LGG)

 

However, if you're releasing a pack of other peoples mods because you see it done with other games, you can't mod yourself but want to be part of the scene, well then you're just repacking.

The kudos from releasing a modpack might be more important to you than the will of the modders you've taken from, and you're unlikely to be able to provide any support, instead you might ignore support requests, directing the player to the modder, or just to google to sort it out.

 

The worst offenders just rar their GameData folder and upload it, not even making sure their installed mods are up to date.

 

Now, I've mentioned reasons why this is bad for modders, old versions, unwanted support requests etc, this is also a real problem from a moderation standpoint.

With many repacks we're stuck with having to download the whole thing, and some can be really large, which we have to search through to find every packed mod, find its license or find its thread because the license was removed by the repacker.

This takes a lot of time, hours in some cases, and we end up in arguments with the repacker over licensing, plus the trouble when they keep on doing it because hey, modpacks aren't banned.

 

And it's bad for players, mod repacks upset many modders, they don't need the headache of old versions and broken downloads from crappy compression software, many modders refuse to deal with it and some get so hacked off they stop providing support, the mods die, and no one wants that.

 

Modpacks cause trouble, there's better alternatives.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hi again, btw I have no objection to the CKAN style my fave modlists, as far as I am aware they are just a list of downloadable mods that play well together, provide a fuller experience or whatever. 

Fair enough it makes  some of sort sense as admittedly, keeping tabs on the threads to make sure your favourite mods are updated available is nothing for many but a chore. And even my jaded self can appreciate that in someways CKAN my fave modlists could be viewed as promoting mods rather than undermining them.

I actually like the idea of that, a one stop way for instance to DL for example all the ship mods and parts you need rather than a two hour search of forums and SpaceDock  .may investigate CKAN use for that reason alone. 

Still a big (72point) fat fluorescent orange NO to repacks of others work

[pellinor]

12 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

The worst offenders just rar their GameData folder and upload it, not even making sure their installed mods are up to date.

"But the GameData folder contains a file myCustomPatches.cfg. That is my mod, the rest is packaged dependencies."

[sal_vager]

23 minutes ago, pellinor said:

"But the GameData folder contains a file myCustomPatches.cfg. That is my mod, the rest is packaged dependencies."

We've had that excuse, seriously.

[Red Iron Crown]

35 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Modpacks cause trouble, there's better alternatives.

Let us not forget the other side of this argument: Modpacks can allow more players to enjoy mods, or have a better experience with a modded game.

I'll be frank here: I haven't used serious VFX mods since 1.1.3. They often don't play nicely with CKAN due to order of operations of installation, their dependencies are moving targets that often mean a distribution of the core mod only works with specific versions of them, and deciding which mods to use together in the first place usually involves a bunch of tedious testing. For me at the moment, it's just too much time commitment out of my limited time for KSP. But...if someone packed together a suite of VFX mods that are tested well to work together and look good (while of course honoring licenses, being courteous to the original modders, and supporting their own distribution), then I'd be first in line to click download. To a large degree this is what some of the existing VFX suites already are.

And that's me, who has been around creating, updating, and maintaining modded KSP installs for years and already know what I like. A modpack can lead to a very positive experience for people modding their game for the first time, as someone else has already curated the mod list and (hopefully) ensured that everything works together properly. There are a truly baffling number of mods available for KSP and the quality and utility of them varies greatly, this is a big barrier to entry for players wanting to mod their game.

The simple truth is that providing a well maintained, curated, and supported mod pack is providing a service to the community, too.

I know the conventional wisdom is that modpacks are bad because the potential exists for outdated versions to be circulating and generating support workload; in my experience just about every mod thread of consequence gets these anyway as not everyone is diligent about updating in the first place or are running old versions of KSP. For that matter people who install a modpack are as likely to report bugs in that thread first anyway, they might not even be aware of the dependencies or bundling.

So while I agree that the potential for trouble exists with mod packs, I am not sure that a blanket ban on the practice is an overall benefit to the community.

[HebaruSan]

57 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

Now, I've mentioned reasons why this is bad for modders, old versions, unwanted support requests etc, this is also a real problem from a moderation standpoint.

With many repacks we're stuck with having to download the whole thing, and some can be really large, which we have to search through to find every packed mod, find its license or find its thread because the license was removed by the repacker.

This takes a lot of time, hours in some cases, and we end up in arguments with the repacker over licensing, plus the trouble when they keep on doing it because hey, modpacks aren't banned.

Wow, that does sound like a tremendous pain. Even if modpacks aren't banned, anyone that puts you in that position should not expect their upload to remain available. Each repacked mod should be listed in the thread with license, at least, the same way an actual mod's links get deleted when there's no license specified.

If/when you do write up this rule, I would suggest framing it as a positive: KSP mod authors generally offer support personally! I can't imagine the authors of Buildcraft or Caliente's Beautiful Bodies Edition having the slightest interest in any problems I had with their work (though that may be unfair to them).

[Tex_NL]

12 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Let us not forget the other side of this argument: Modpacks can allow more players to enjoy mods, or have a better experience with a modded game.

[SNIP]

So while I agree that the potential for trouble exists with mod packs, I am not sure that a blanket ban on the practice is an overall benefit to the community.

There is absolutely no need to pack several mods together. All a 'modpacker' would have to do to achieve the exact same goal is offer a list of link, (detailed) instructions on how to install and perhaps one or two customized config files.
For the user this would indeed mean he/she would need to download several smaller files instead of one huge file but in return it will ensure that only the latest versions are used.
And at the same time it would not violate any redistribution restrictions. There is nothing 'illegal' about someone saying 'this, this and that work good together if you install it in such a way.'

Edited March 4, 2017 by Tex_NL

[Red Iron Crown]

1 minute ago, Tex_NL said:

There is absolutely no need to pack several mods together. All a 'modpacker' would have to do to achieve the exact same goal is offer a list of link, (detailed) instructions on how to install and perhaps one or two customized config files.
For the user this would indeed mean he/she would need to download several smaller files instead of one huge file but in return it will ensure that only the latest versions are used.

That would miss the whole point of bundling versions that are validated by the bundler to work well together. Witness how just about every planet pack breaks when Kopernicus updates, or just about every VFX suite breaks when EVE updates. Do you think the situation for those modders would be improved by linking their dependencies rather than bundling them?

[Poodmund]

I prefer to provide my modifications as stand alone distributions in that they will not functions without the user going and downloading the various dependencies themselves. In the case where a mod may need a specific version of a dependent mod, in my opinion, it is better for the mod author to link to a specific version of that mod in their OP to use with their mod rather than bundling it.

Doing it this way also helps CKAN when managing installation for dependencies if I'm thinking correctly.

I don't really like "mod packs" but I see their appeal and/or benefits to some users, however, there is a big difference between say SVE and something like this: http://spacedock.ru/ksp/news/5479-graphics-enhancements-assembly-v5-release.html <--- Which probably violates some licenses.

[paulprogart]

I'm new to KSP modding and modding in general, but certainly not to software.

When I release a program in a .exe file linked to code libraries like msvcrt.dll or newtonsoft.json.dll or whatever and a user runs my program and gets an error message with a crash in that DLL, they don't blame the DLL, they blame my program.  And they're right to do so, because it's far more likely that  I made a mistake in using that code library than it is that the library has a bug.  Plus it's clear my program is the culprit.

However, when I release a mod in a DLL that is then repackaged as part of a mod pack and a user gets an error message with a crash in DLL, they're probably gonna blame *my mod*, not the mod pack, because that's all they see.  That is, they don't see "Joe's KSP modpack - error in PaulsMod.DLL", they just see "Error in PaulsMod.DLL".  (The savvier users will indeed suspect the pack - I've seen that often here - but the less technical ones won't, and it's the non-techies that are the concern in this whole issue of course.)  However, it's far more likely that the mod pack installed it improperly or is using it incorrectly or has other mods that don't play nice or may even be using an altered version (as some licences allow).  Yet it's me as a mod author who has to contend with it.

Disallowing modpacks doesn't remove this problem but it does clean it up a bit.  Although personally, I'd like to see it taken further (and I know this won't be popular):  ban all redistributions of mods of any kind, including those that compose other legitimate mods.  (I'll call the latter "expansions".)  Just because the licence permits redistribution doesn't mean you have to allow it on the forums.  Allowing redistribution has benefits like avoids inconveniencing casual users and lets the mod can live on it stops being maintained, but just because mod authors allow redistribution doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to keep control of development, or give up a say in how their creation gets used.  The forum could actually offer a form of insurance to that effect.

The rule would be simple: as a mod has an active thread, users have to go there to obtain it.  It doesn't preclude "expansions" because each mod author could still specifically authorize those "expansions "to redistribute their mods by listing them in the mod thread's OP if they wanted.  All it's saying is that if somebody's going to use that mod as part of a bigger work then it had better work the way the author intended.

Yes there would be a lot of short-term pain while this system is transitioned to, but I think it would stop this practise of users having dozens of mods on their system and not knowing where they came from, who put them there, and why they're failing.  So in the long-term you'd have a less fragile system I think.  Mod authors win with fewer random gripes, "expansion" creators win by knowing the stuff they include is gonna work, and users win by having less failures.

BTW CKAN is another matter entirely.  I'd be fine to trust a system like CKAN to handle this for me as both a mod author and mod user.  At least CKAN is going to the source so it's doing the right thing.  I do have other issues with trusting that I won't get into here to avoid derailment, but I will say that if CKAN were made official those issues would go away.  It's a pity that likely isn't gonna happen, especially because I think the ROI would be far better than it is with Curse.

 

[DStaal]

28 minutes ago, paulprogart said:

Disallowing modpacks doesn't remove this problem but it does clean it up a bit.  Although personally, I'd like to see it taken further (and I know this won't be popular):  ban all redistributions of mods of any kind, including those that compose other legitimate mods.  (I'll call the latter "expansions".)  Just because the licence permits redistribution doesn't mean you have to allow it on the forums.  Allowing redistribution has benefits like avoids inconveniencing casual users and lets the mod can live on it stops being maintained, but just because mod authors allow redistribution doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to keep control of development, or give up a say in how their creation gets used.  The forum could actually offer a form of insurance to that effect

That would actually manage to defeat the point of a couple of common mods...

Going back to my example from above, USI's MKS is contains these mods that are or have been available separately:

• Module Manager
• USI Tools
• USI Core
• AT Utils
• Community Resource Pack
• Community Category Kit
• Firespitter Core
• Ground Construction Core
• Karibou
• Konstruction

Two of these (Community Resource Pack, and Community Category Kit) were specifically designed to be included in other mods, and while they technically have a separate download location it's not easy to find.  In two cases (USI Tools and USI Core) they were abstracted out, and are managed separately just for RoverDude's convenience.  On the other hand, Karibou and Konsctruction were rolled in to MKS for RoverDude's convenience.  (Based on what other mods he's creating - the first two are common tools many of his mods use, while the latter were at first released separately and then rolled in as they matured to reduce his total mod count.)  AT Utils and Ground Construction Core are mods where he's working closely with the other mod author to integrate them tightly - to the point of making models for them.

Is it really better to force users to download 11 mods for this?  (And many would have trouble installing them - enough have trouble right now, when RoverDude can say 'it should look exactly like the zip file.') 

I see your point, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater - RoverDude isn't just saying 'the license allows it', he's actively working with or directly maintaining all of those but one.  (Module Manager.)  Saying 'no, you have to make your users jump though hoops to install it' is just going to make it harder for him to support his own work, for no benefit to you except for having a cleaner rule.

[spec111]

Please dont ban modpacks! There is a lot of various mods, so we are moving to times where user will select between 3-6 major, may be devs approved, modpacks and will not worry about all this compatibility problems.

In fact many mod-heavy huge MMO like World of Tanks cant live without modpacks today! And KSP in fact much more mod-dependent.

Edited March 5, 2017 by spec111

[linuxgurugamer]

2 hours ago, spec111 said:

Please dont ban modpacks! There is a lot of various mods, so we are moving to times where user will select between 3-6 major, may be devs approved, repacks and will not worry about all this compatibility problems.

In fact many mod-heavy huge MMO like World of Tanks cant live without modpacks today! And KSP in fact much more mod-dependent.

Have you read the entire thread?  And I don't understand what you are saying;  I can only assume that english isn't your first language. because that second sentence doesn't make sense.

This isn't an MMO, and frankly, since you mentioned WOT, you do know that WOT mods are much more version dependent than KSP mods?  Go ahead and ask a WOT mod author for support of an outdated mod;  the nicest thing that will happen is you will be told to get the current version

[spec111]

Hmm... I have only one point - every game with a lot of mods and big community has only one way to survival. It is 3-6 large community-supported modpacks because it makes all stuff much more easier for average players (not mod-grognards). And if you kill modpacks at all it will make situation much more complicated and much more unattractive for average players.

Edited March 5, 2017 by spec111

[paulprogart]

5 hours ago, DStaal said:

Two of these (Community Resource Pack, and Community Category Kit) were specifically designed to be included in other mods, and while they technically have a separate download location it's not easy to find.  In two cases (USI Tools and USI Core) they were abstracted out, and are managed separately just for RoverDude's convenience.  On the other hand, Karibou and Konsctruction were rolled in to MKS for RoverDude's convenience.  (Based on what other mods he's creating - the first two are common tools many of his mods use, while the latter were at first released separately and then rolled in as they matured to reduce his total mod count.)  AT Utils and Ground Construction Core are mods where he's working closely with the other mod author to integrate them tightly - to the point of making models for them.

Is it really better to force users to download 11 mods for this?  (And many would have trouble installing them - enough have trouble right now, when RoverDude can say 'it should look exactly like the zip file.') 

I see your point, but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater - RoverDude isn't just saying 'the license allows it', he's actively working with or directly maintaining all of those but one.  (Module Manager.) 

But as I said (as did @Galileo earlier - credit where due), mod authors could allow this by posting it to the mod thread OP.  There's no reason ModuleManager's author can't say "ModuleManager is intended as a framework for other mods, repackage at will".  And in RoverDude's case, since he's actively working with mod authors, they can grant him that permission to repackage.  Hard to imagine an author who wouldn't do this when there's a clear benefit for the community and more users of the mod as a result.

 

5 hours ago, DStaal said:

Saying 'no, you have to make your users jump though hoops to install it' is just going to make it harder for him to support his own work, for no benefit to you except for having a cleaner rule.

7 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Let us not forget the other side of this argument: Modpacks can allow more players to enjoy mods, or have a better experience with a modded game.

[snip]

The simple truth is that providing a well maintained, curated, and supported mod pack is providing a service to the community, too.

These two quoted bits tie together... Yes mod packs, especially "extensions", add value.  But @DStaal as you said yourself, they are edge cases, and indeed it sounds to me like the whole reason for this discussion is because practical experience suggests that truly valuable such things are quite rare.  So shouldn't protecting mod authors be the primary objective here?  After all, without mods, there are no mod packs.

I've been on rulemaking bodies before, so I know that designing rules to suit the edge cases (in this case, "extension" packagers) can often end up screwing over those in the core case (i.e. mod authors), who are far more common.  Better to find something that will accomplish the primary means and then try to fit the edge cases in best we can.  It might make for more convoluted rule wording with a bunch of exceptions, but I think that's a small price to pay.

The benefit to me and all mod authors of a ban (especially a blanket ban) is that we would get fewer support headaches because we'd know that installations and usages would be consistent.  That is a potential value-add to mod authors that the forum is in a unique position to provide; kind of like an insurance policy.  Just as it provides insurance against safe, ad-free mods to users.
 

[paulprogart]

I had another idea that is is much simpler and I think addresses the core issue around legitimate value-added repackages of mods ("extensions" as I called them) and the associated support issues for mod authors more cleanly than any rule would.  Only problem is that it requires a code change - to KSP itself.  Minor detail.  Nevertheless, here it is just for discussion:

If KSP errors and log messages were always reported with respect to the top-level folder within GameData where the DLL is located, then it would be immediately clear what pack the mod came from.  "Extensions" would just include everything in their own subfolder, and they'll get reported like "Error in JoesModPack - module PaulsMod threw an exception...".  That makes it far more obvious to users where to go for support, and if they happen to get it wrong it makes it far more obvious for mod supporters to redirect them.

I know this doesn't cover the ModuleManager case, i.e. something that's supposed to be reused by a bunch of different packs, but I think authors who undertake those kind of mods know a bit more what they're getting into and can handle the support complexities.  (Also I know some other mods still include ModuleManager in their own folders already to avoid other issues like version problems, so those would be covered.)

It also doesn't cover multiple versions of the same DLL but since we're changing KSP anyhow it could be made to easily detect and report these as warnings in the log.

[passinglurker]

It seems to me that the issues with mod packs come when they are used as a form of low effort content (I.e. throwing your top 50 in a zip and calling it a day) therefore if you ban low effort content you have a rule that is flexible enough to prune the cheap and troublesome packs from the potentially interesting ones (I.e. where the pack curractor rebalanced, play tested, and otherwise added value to create a new game play experience) 

[DStaal]

5 hours ago, paulprogart said:

But as I said (as did @Galileo earlier - credit where due), mod authors could allow this by posting it to the mod thread OP.  There's no reason ModuleManager's author can't say "ModuleManager is intended as a framework for other mods, repackage at will".  And in RoverDude's case, since he's actively working with mod authors, they can grant him that permission to repackage.  Hard to imagine an author who wouldn't do this when there's a clear benefit for the community and more users of the mod as a result.

Which directly contradicts the portion of your post I quoted.

 

Honestly if they just said 'Modpacks are not allowed.' with the implied 'What is a modpack will be decided by the moderators' I'd be fine with it...

[Poodmund]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

Honestly if they just said 'Modpacks are not allowed.' with the implied 'What is a modpack will be decided by the moderators' I'd be fine with it...

"Mod-packs are not permitted to be posted on the KSP Forums unless they have been authorised by a Moderator to do so." ... ?

[TheKurgan]

Here is my personal opinion on this subject, so please don't hammer me... There NEEDS to be some kind of core standard in the modding community, and here is the only one I can think of that would work:

ALL modders should make their mods CKAN and AVC compliant.

Here's the oxymoron...

I don't use CKAN... several of the mods I use are not on CKAN, and last year I decided to try it and had several issues that irked me enough to uninstall it.

BUT, if all the modders used CKAN, mod packs or bundles, could easily be made by the trusted names here like Linuxgurugamer, Galileo, Spannermonkey and other multimod contributors/owners.

Edited March 5, 2017 by TheKurgan