Why are people against mods?

[Overland]

Mods are a beautiful thing

Being against the expansion, broadening interest base and beautification of this game by way of mods.. Is one of the darker and degressive parts of humanitys nature

Be stock all you want.. Crow about how stock is best

KSP is similar to life in the way that just about everything that enhanced or added something to progress .. Was at one time a modification of something to make a new thing to suit x purpose

 

Plenty of caves, raw meat.. Shivering dark cold nights and short lifespan for those who would seem it fit to live life as...stock.. As they would play and defend KSP as

[DualDesertEagle]

4 hours ago, Overland said:

Mods are a beautiful thing

Being against the expansion, broadening interest base and beautification of this game by way of mods.. Is one of the darker and degressive parts of humanitys nature

Be stock all you want.. Crow about how stock is best

KSP is similar to life in the way that just about everything that enhanced or added something to progress .. Was at one time a modification of something to make a new thing to suit x purpose

 

Plenty of caves, raw meat.. Shivering dark cold nights and short lifespan for those who would seem it fit to live life as...stock.. As they would play and defend KSP as

∆

 |

THIS!

[SupperRobin6394]

... we got a Discord? Link pls

[Onigato]

So many have said it, haters gonna hate. My mods list isn't long (Holy Kerbol, over two hundred active mods?! Wow), but I like the extra challenge Tac Life gives, and I'd be LOST without Kerbal Alarm Clock. People want to play stock, good on them, but me, I'm gonna find KER every single update, download Waypoint Manager, and groove to ScanSat's builds. Play your way, and above all, HAVE FUN. That's literally the only thing that matters, are you the player having fun. If not, find some way to do so.

[pandaman]

I think mods can add a lot to the game for those who want them.

Although I don't 'like' using them i do use a few. I would much prefer it if the features in the mods i do use were stock, but they're not.  And i would rather not have to update them with every update, but i do.  That's my choice.

The only issue i have is one that has been mentioned before, which is that unless players are using the same mods then they aren't playing the same game.  Which only actually matters when comparing progress or competing in some way.

[Corona688]

Mod parts bug me.  I remember the first mod pack someone suggested to me - a really old iteration of novapunch, maybe - had such ridiculously high impact tolerances they could survive nosediving in the ocean with all engines firing.  Another one, a tiny Apollo LEM, contained enough fuel to SSTO.  And the "ork rockets" pack was a bigger download than the entire game at that point, for around five parts.

So if you use parts mods, I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts my video card can't handle until proven otherwise.

Other game mods, things which extend the game instead of defeating it, don't bug me at all.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Corona688

[OhioBob]

I have no objection to mods, but there is one thing that annoys me.  That's when somebody asks a question like "how do I calculate the delta-v of my rocket," and the first answer they get is "install KER."  The person asked "how do I calculate...," not "is there a mod that can do this."  While I have no problem informing the person that there's a mod that can do the work for them, that doesn't really answer the question that was asked.  While mods are a convenience, they are not a substitute for understanding how and why things work they way they do.  Some people just want to understand the underlying physics and mathematics even if they use mods to do the tedious work most of the time.

[John FX]

41 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

So if you use parts mods, I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts my video card can't handle until proven otherwise.

You should try Realism Overhaul and some of the rocket packs for that. They are as close to real statistics as can be done and make stock parts feel like crazy overpowered vanity parts, especially when there is a limit on the amount of time they can run before burning through and failing, and a limit on the amount of times they can be ignited (usually only once).

As for your poor graphics card, I am afraid only one solution seems appropriate for that, getting a better one. The one I am using cost £65 from amazon and it runs a full RO/RSS(8K textures) install with many many part packs, as well as RSSEVE, and it does it without breaking a sweat. The level of hardware needed to cope with a fairly intense KSP install is really cheap these days and nowhere near the top end, at least as far as graphics cards go.

I am just getting the feel of Principia as we speak, it is very very cool. Throws out of the window most of the stuff I have learned in KSP, even the new stuff I learned playing Realism Overhaul in RSS. Not harder, not easier, very different and a LOT more fun.

EDIT :

6 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I have no objection to mods, but there is one thing that annoys me.  That's when somebody asks a question like "how do I calculate the delta-v of my rocket," and the first answer they get is "install KER."  The person asked "how do I calculate...," not "is there a mod that can do this."  While I have no problem informing the person that there's a mod that can do the work for them, that doesn't really answer the question that was asked.  While mods are a convenience, they are not a substitute for understanding how and why things work they way they do.  Some people just want to understand the underlying physics and mathematics even if they use mods to do the tedious work most of the time.

"There's a mod for that" is, as you say, trite and is punted out at times when it is not appropriate. Conversely, it is just as annoying when someone is asking for mods which can do that or the easiest way to find out that information and they get told to use a pen and paper or a spreadsheet, and for the same reasons. Some people just want to know the Dv of their craft and to have it displayed live without loads of working out. It gives it's own type of understanding of how and why things work the way they do when you make changes to your craft and see the effect on Dv live. It is the difference between a list of numbers and a graph, it allows you to visualise what is going on in another way. Many scientists visualise their data to get a better understanding of it.

It can speed up the learning process no end.

Edited November 18, 2017 by John FX

[Rocket In My Pocket]

6 hours ago, OhioBob said:

I have no objection to mods, but there is one thing that annoys me.  That's when somebody asks a question like "how do I calculate the delta-v of my rocket," and the first answer they get is "install KER."  The person asked "how do I calculate...," not "is there a mod that can do this."  While I have no problem informing the person that there's a mod that can do the work for them, that doesn't really answer the question that was asked.  While mods are a convenience, they are not a substitute for understanding how and why things work they way they do.  Some people just want to understand the underlying physics and mathematics even if they use mods to do the tedious work most of the time.

I don't see any issue with offering KER first. I also don't see it as a substitute for understanding how and why things work, it's fairly easy to pick that up over time just building with the KER window open and watching the numbers change as you add or take away things. Ie. Just because I may use a calculator to multiply a large number like 7,298x3,452 ; doesn't mean I don't understand how multiplication works lol.

Anyways, most people aren't literally asking how to pen and paper it. If they are, they will likely make that clear in their original question.

Even if they are explicitly asking how to pen and paper it, they may be unaware of KER's existence and prefer it over tedious hand-work if offered.

Edited November 19, 2017 by softweir
Removed offensive video

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

7 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I don't see any issue with offering KER first. I also don't see it as a substitute for understanding how and why things work, it's fairly easy to pick that up over time just building with the KER window open and watching the numbers change as you add or take away things. Ie. Just because I may use a calculator to multiply a large number like 7,298x3,452 ; doesn't mean I don't understand how multiplication works lol.

Anyways, most people aren't literally asking how to pen and paper it. If they are, they will likely make that clear in their original question.

Even if they are explicitly asking how to pen and paper it, they may be unaware of KER's existence and prefer it over tedious hand-work if offered.

 

That was utterly fantastic. My kids think I'm nuts. I was laughing like a freakin' loon. I don't if you did that or somebody else. Either way, it was hysterical. And kind of off-topic, but a great scene in a great movie. Got the day off cuz it's raining, so I'm already in good spirits, but now I'm really in a good mood. Thank you, sir. 

Edited November 19, 2017 by softweir
Removed quoted content that was against Guidelines.

[OhioBob]

45 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

So if you use parts mods, I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts my video card can't handle until proven otherwise.

For most of the part packs I've used, I think the authors have done a pretty good job of trying to give their parts characteristics consistent with the stock parts.  There might be something like larger tanks and engines than those found in stock, but they have the same mass ratios, similar specific impulse, etc.  As long as they fall on the same performance curve as the stock parts, I wouldn't consider them overpowered.  Many parts packs just fill in gaps or are an extension of the stock parts.  Of course that doesn't mean that some parts aren't overpowered, I just have seen many examples of that in my experience.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

4 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:

That was utterly fantastic. My kids think I'm nuts. I was laughing like a freakin' loon. I don't if you did that or somebody else. Either way, it was hysterical. And kind of off-topic, but a great scene in a great movie. Got the day off cuz it's raining, so I'm already in good spirits, but now I'm really in a good mood. Thank you, sir. 

There are a million of them, for just about every possible subject; check some more out! (No, I didn't make it though.) They always make me laugh. "Hitler Reacts" is the name of the "meme."

Yeah, fantastic movie; truly. I read the actor who played Hitler was perplexed about the meme but was glad everyone enjoyed his performance lol.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Rocket In My Pocket

[OhioBob]

28 minutes ago, John FX said:

"There's a mod for that" is, as you say, trite and is punted out at times when it is not appropriate. Conversely, it is just as annoying when someone is asking for mods which can do that or the easiest way to find out that information and they get told to use a pen and paper or a spreadsheet, and for the same reasons. Some people just want to know the Dv of their craft and to have it displayed live without loads of working out. It gives it's own type of understanding of how and why things work the way they do when you make changes to your craft and see the effect on Dv live. It is the difference between a list of numbers and a graph, it allows you to visualise what is going on in another way. Many scientists visualise their data to get a better understanding of it.

There's a middle ground that I think is the most appropriate response.

"If you are looking for a mod that can perform those calculations for you, then I recommend KER.  If you want to perform the calculations yourself, then I suggest you look at Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation.  If you need further help, just ask."
 

30 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Anyways, most people aren't literally asking how to pen and paper it. If they are, they will likely make that clear in their original question.

I think the first assumption should be that the person meant what they wrote.

 

[Corona688]

1 hour ago, John FX said:

You should try Realism Overhaul and some of the rocket packs for that.

No thanks, I'm not bored with the game yet.

1 hour ago, John FX said:

As for your poor graphics card, I am afraid only one solution seems appropriate for that, getting a better one.

No.

[Spricigo]

55 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

There are a million of them, for just about every possible subject;

Spoiler

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

There's a middle ground that I think is the most appropriate response.

...

I think the first assumption should be that the person meant what they wrote.

Or we can just give what we think is the best answer and let others contributions fill the potential gap.

"I use [method] to know deltaV of my rockets. Works pretty well because Reasons"

 

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Mod parts bug me.  I remember the first mod pack someone suggested to me - a really old iteration of novapunch, maybe - had such ridiculously high impact tolerances they could survive nosediving in the ocean with all engines firing.  Another one, a tiny Apollo LEM, contained enough fuel to SSTO.  And the "ork rockets" pack was a bigger download than the entire game at that point, for around five parts.

So if you use parts mods, I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts my video card can't handle until proven otherwise.

Other game mods, things which extend the game instead of defeating it, don't bug me at all.

I can prove you wrong by pointing you toward nearly every other part pack I know of.

Edited November 18, 2017 by klgraham1013

[Corona688]

3 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

I can prove you wrong by pointing you toward nearly every other part pack I know of.

There's probably more fun ways to spend your time.

[klgraham1013]

4 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

There's probably more fun ways to spend your time.

Indeed.  Instead of showing people cool part mods, I could be playing with them.

[Corona688]

Have fun.

[OhioBob]

35 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

Or we can just give what we think is the best answer and let others contributions fill the potential gap.

"I use [method] to know deltaV of my rockets. Works pretty well because Reasons"

I would be perfectly content with such an answer.

[John FX]

53 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

No.

yes, eventually you will. Either your old one will stop working, or a new one will be so cheap for what you get that you will just replace it, or your old one will stop being supported.

Unless of course you plan on your current card being the very last one you will ever buy and you will stop using a computer if it stops working.

53 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

No thanks, I'm not bored with the game yet.

I didn't say you were, you said that part packs were overpowered and you would assume all part packs were unless proven otherwise, there was no mention of boredom. Here, if you have forgotten I have quoted you for you.

 

2 hours ago, Corona688 said:

if you use parts mods, I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts my video card can't handle until proven otherwise.

If you wanted proof of parts that were not overpowered, you should try Realism Overhaul; and the part packs for that because they are the proof you say you require. Not because you are bored with the game. I then stated that even the most basic card can handle them, mine is very basic and does fine for example, if your card is worse than the most basic one then the problem is not with the part packs.

I have had great fun using them.

EDIT :

1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

There's a middle ground that I think is the most appropriate response.

"If you are looking for a mod that can perform those calculations for you, then I recommend KER.  If you want to perform the calculations yourself, then I suggest you look at Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation.  If you need further help, just ask."

That seems the most appropriate response to me also.

Edited November 18, 2017 by John FX

[Corona688]

57 minutes ago, John FX said:

yes, eventually you will.

Not today.

Quote

I didn't say you were, you said that part packs were overpowered and you would assume all part packs were unless proven otherwise, there was no mention of boredom. Here, if you have forgotten I have quoted you for you.

Okay?

Quote

If you wanted proof of parts that were not overpowered, you should try Realism Overhaul; and the part packs for that because they are the proof you say you require.

Substantially crappier than stock is just as unbalanced as too good.  Like the nova pack I made fun of, they're consistent among themselves and not consistent with the stock game.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Corona688

[klgraham1013]

25 minutes ago, Corona688 said:

Substantially crappier than stock is just as unbalanced as too good.  Like the nova pack I made fun of, they're consistent among themselves and not consistent with the stock game.

There are many part packs consistent with stock.  ...but I think you've already made up your mind on the subject.

Edited November 18, 2017 by klgraham1013

[Vanamonde]

When linking videos, please make sure that they abide by our forum's rules for things such as foul language. We've trimmed one or two links from this thread. 

[KerikBalm]

On 11/17/2017 at 8:27 PM, pandaman said:

The only issue i have is one that has been mentioned before, which is that unless players are using the same mods then they aren't playing the same game.  Which only actually matters when comparing progress or competing in some way.

Indeed, I like to make certain craft "all stock" so that they can be shared with anyone. In my most recent games, my main cargo SSTOs are all stock (or all stock except for a single TAC-LS life support supplies container), most of the payloads for said craft have some mod parts. Its the system I play in that is the biggest deviation from stock though - 3x radius/sma resizes, 1.25x atmo resize, 1.5x heighmap resize, Eve gravity reduced to 1.2 G, atmo pressure increased to 10x, Dres scaled down to be more proportional to ceres, vesta and pallas analogues added, Duna becomes a binary system with my mod planet rald, Val, Tylo, and Laythe scaled down to be proportionally 2x the size of their closest jovian analogues (with scaled down surface gavities on top of that) and then on top of that I add OPM... Its not the same game.

23 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Mod parts bug me ... I'll just assume they're crazy, overpowered vanity parts ... Other game mods, things which extend the game instead of defeating it, don't bug me at all.

Well, I find many rocket part mods to be too over powered too. I see firespitter used a lot, but I've also seen video of it used on Duna, in really thin atmo, producing way too much thrust. So I made my own part mods, where thrust of the electric fans scales with air pressure the same way the stock turbofan does (exact same thrust curve for pressure, the mach curve is modified to give a hard mach 1 limit). The other part mod I use (aside from TAC-LS parts) is Kerbal Planetary Base systems... not OP'd at all because its mostly just life support parts and parts meant to sit on the ground (the lander engines are quite inline with stock values).

19 hours ago, Corona688 said:

Substantially crappier than stock is just as unbalanced as too good. 

Realism overhaul parts are often not substantially crappier than stock. They often have much better TWR or Isp, or both - but its only balanced if you play with RSS, where you need ~9 km/sec of delta V to get to orbit. They are "balanced" to real life values.

Quote

Another one, a tiny Apollo LEM, contained enough fuel to SSTO

Again... this is because you're not using it with RSS. The real Appollo LEM did SSTO... from the lunar surface to lunar orbit. That took over 3km/s of delta-V IIRC. So the part should have 3km/sec of dV. That SSTOs from kerbin in the stock system, but not RSS