Would "official" modders be a good idea?

[ravener]

Right now a lot of mods are limited to what you can do without accsess to the source code. Would it be for the better or for the worse if modders could get accsess to the source code by signing an agreement of some sort with squad. The agreement would be something like them being legally obliged to not distribute the source code in any way and to run stuff that would require stand alone installs to go thrugh squad.

Then we could probbably see some co op multiplayer as acsess to everything from how warp works to players being able to controll other crafts than the one that is selected (and technically the center of the universe). I would let how these things would work be up to the ones picking up the task. A lot of things are needed for things like multiplayer ( i couldent come up with other Examples, sorry...) that would probbably mess up singleplayer enough to not be worth it as a package, however as a standalone install with its own saves and folders i could see some modders trying... And possibly making it.

Basically, let us make stuff for you squad. Let us try out things for you without any cost in coding time for you.

I might have missunderstood horribly, if so please tell me so... Hopefuly without throwing of tomatoes that may or may not be safe to eat.

Also, this is written on an ipad by a norwegian without spellcheck on him... Go light on mistakes please.

Edited July 31, 2013 by ravener
Two fs in official

[ravener]

To clarify, i cant mod for ****... I am just thinking that those who can may see this as a thing that could be helpful.

Also, mods that work without any work through sourcecode would continue to be distributed normally.

[OrbitusII]

We don't really need the source code in its entirety, there's just too much stuff for us to go through and stuff we don't need. The biggest help to modding (specifically plugins) would be a comprehensive API documentation, but the code is changing from version to version so it's not a totally realistic goal at the moment.

[ravener]

God i need to clear up some things and i am wayyy to lazy to edit a lot.

The way i imagine it working is that you fill out an aplication form and some info prooving that you are in fact a true person, for then you being sent a copy with the source code inprinted in the code a few places and in some of the textures with secret techmagic the info needed to id the owner of the code in case of a leak...

[ravener]

We don't really need the source code in its entirety, there's just too much stuff for us to go through and stuff we don't need. The biggest help to modding (specifically plugins) would be a comprehensive API documentation, but the code is changing from version to version so it's not a totally realistic goal at the moment.

As a non modder i wouldent know what would be needed to make stuff, i guess you could exclude the boring bits and resend e important stuff every update... Mailing lists have existed for a while.

Still, i have no clue what i am talking about but i can imagine a lot of stuff being made if there is no consequence when it comes to utter destruction of the main game.

Edit: actually, do that stuff you said... Wait scratch that majiir is here.

Edited July 31, 2013 by ravener
Fkn majiir, thats the reason

[Majiir]

We don't really need the source code in its entirety, there's just too much stuff for us to go through and stuff we don't need. The biggest help to modding (specifically plugins) would be a comprehensive API documentation

I disagree. Access to source code would allow us to understand the underlying mechanics and communicate with Squad developers at a more sophisticated level. Squad's time is better used improving the API than documenting it.

[ravener]

I disagree. Access to source code would allow us to understand the underlying mechanics and communicate with Squad developers at a more sophisticated level. Squad's time is better used improving the API than documenting it.

I guess ill respect the kethane guy, you are probbably the better modder of us two...

[sumghai]

I very strongly dislike the idea of designating specific modders as "official" or reserving source code/API documentation to selected individuals.

The way i imagine it working is that you fill out an aplication form and some info prooving that you are in fact a true person

Setting up artificial roadblocks like these would only be to the detriment of the modding community. Modders come and go depending on real life commitments and interests, and who is to say that one of your so-called "official" modders won't get hit by a bus or eaten by the Kraken in the next ten minutes or so?

Access to source code would allow us to understand the underlying mechanics and communicate with Squad developers at a more sophisticated level. Squad's time is better used improving the API than documenting it.

This.

As SQUAD continues to build on KSP, they can simply provide examples of where new additions to the API in the form of new parts / features that use them. Most modders would be able to reverse-engineer their own variants from these, whilst information regarding more complex modules could be requested and provided on a as-needed basis (instead of maintaining documentation for the entire API).

[Galacticruler]

The answer might already exist.

[sumghai]

The answer might already exist.

As far as I'm concerned, those only cover what's in the persistence / quicksave files, and vessel composition.

[ravener]

I very strongly dislike the idea of designating specific modders as "official" or reserving source code/API documentation to selected individuals.

Setting up artificial roadblocks like these would only be to the detriment of the modding community. Modders come and go depending on real life commitments and interests, and who is to say that one of your so-called "official" modders won't get hit by a bus or eaten by the Kraken in the next ten minutes or so?

This is why i marked this as a discussion, i knew someone would say something like this. In many ways i agree, however distributing source code to everyone is dangerous and it will be exploited. The reason for all the legal stuff and aplications is so you know they wont run away with your code. I am not sayin however That it should be hard to aply, as banning leakers would be ( semi ) easy with code markers of some automagic kind. If you risk not getting the latest bugfixes and updates to the code in adition to some suing action or at least forum ban or something i think you could keep stuff under squad. The suing is really not for leakers btw, itbis for other studios stealing code.

Edit: "official" is not really descriptive here as the only thing squad does is checking if you steal their code... The checking of the stuff by squad themselves would probbably rarely happen too as you could have it make a separate install of ksp with the altered / modded files if it is so different from ksp that you couldent play with the changes installed.

Sorry for a lack of dividing here, ipad...

Edited July 31, 2013 by ravener
Stuff

[Scoundrel]

Unfortunately I don't have any tomatoes as I had a sandwich for lunch and they're all gone. I do, however, have some carrots and half a watermelon and some mouldy cheese... will those do?

(I was also going to add Spam to the list, but since you're practically a viking, I didn't want this thread to break out in song)

In my humble opinion, letting modders peek at the source really isn't going to be that useful to them at the moment as the code is a constantly evolving work. I imagine what would be more useful to them (and less frustrating) would be for some volunteer(s) to generate documentation and keep said documentation up to date. It would likely even help C7 and HarvesteR and the rest of the guys as they plug away on KSP. And an NDA coupled with anonymity (like the Stig) would help maintain OPSEC, which should (mostly) mitigate any risk... though there will likely be a memoir or two published which would cause a horrendous scandal that likely involve a couple of dwarves, a gallon of peanut oil, a sherpa, three tuning forks, and a dozen bananas.

[Majiir]

In my humble opinion, letting modders peek at the source really isn't going to be that useful to them at the moment as the code is a constantly evolving work. I imagine what would be more useful to them (and less frustrating) would be for some volunteer(s) to generate documentation and keep said documentation up to date.

Why do you think this? The vast majority of modders I talk to agree that source code (through either NDA access or decompiling) is incredibly useful. It reveals how the game actually works, not how it's supposed to work or how the developers envisioned it would be used. It's an enormous task to write documentation that covers all the bases; for a project like KSP, that's just never going to happen.

I'm not sure why this "the code is a constantly evolving work" objection keeps coming up. Modders are used to the codebase changing underneath. If anything, the rapid pace of change means that source code is even more useful, because it instantly reflects changes, whereas documentation must be updated manually.

[Devo]

I wouldn't really want access to the source code, and if they released it you know as well as I do there would be a knock off version out in no time. There are plenty of people here on this forum who seem much more talented than the actual Squad developers, so I could see another KSP forming pretty quick. Yes it would be handy to the plugin coders, but it would also spell the end of KSP.

What I do wish they would give us is more access to models. Having to sift through forum posts and then decipher an image of a model in unity and figure out how it goes together is a pain in the kerbal.

[sumghai]

The vast majority of modders I talk to agree that source code (through either NDA access or decompiling) is incredibly useful. It reveals how the game actually works, not how it's supposed to work or how the developers envisioned it would be used. It's an enormous task to write documentation that covers all the bases; for a project like KSP, that's just never going to happen.

I'm not sure why this "the code is a constantly evolving work" objection keeps coming up. Modders are used to the codebase changing underneath. If anything, the rapid pace of change means that source code is even more useful, because it instantly reflects changes, whereas documentation must be updated manually.

This again.

Good code should be self-documenting anyway, by the use of in-code comments.

[Scoundrel]

Why do you think this? <snip> It's an enormous task to write documentation that covers all the bases; for a project like KSP, that's just never going to happen.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure why this "the code is a constantly evolving work" objection keeps coming up. Modders are used to the codebase changing underneath. If anything, the rapid pace of change means that source code is even more useful, because it instantly reflects changes, whereas documentation must be updated manually.

Again good points. I have a few questions though: what is the likelihood of source code being released to "dev approved modders" and its attendant issues? And if the code doesn't get released, what's the next best thing?

[Themohawkninja]

Aside from having access to individual methods and classes, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot more that you can do from what I have seen come out of the modding community. If you don't need the source code to re-write the aerodynamics model, than what would you really need the source code for?

[ravener]

I wouldn't really want access to the source code, and if they released it you know as well as I do there would be a knock off version out in no time. There are plenty of people here on this forum who seem much more talented than the actual Squad developers, so I could see another KSP forming pretty quick. Yes it would be handy to the plugin coders, but it would also spell the end of KSP.

What I do wish they would give us is more access to models. Having to sift through forum posts and then decipher an image of a model in unity and figure out how it goes together is a pain in the kerbal.

That is exactly why people has to go thrugh all the aplications and ****, so they can be responsible especially in case of nock offs. Ksp aleready has torrents up, any knock off would be motivated by being able to be sold as a separate thing, suuuuuuuuuuuing.

[Diche Bach]

I wouldn't really want access to the source code, and if they released it you know as well as I do there would be a knock off version out in no time. There are plenty of people here on this forum who seem much more talented than the actual Squad developers, so I could see another KSP forming pretty quick. Yes it would be handy to the plugin coders, but it would also spell the end of KSP.

What I do wish they would give us is more access to models. Having to sift through forum posts and then decipher an image of a model in unity and figure out how it goes together is a pain in the kerbal.

No idea how useful access to the source code would be for modders.

However, I just wanted to point out that, this is not just a game; it is a commercial product and intellectual property. It is also a fantastic, revolutionary game. Whether there are geniuses in the community who are "way more talented" than all of Squad put together and/or whether their 'potential' to make free mods is or is not hampered by access to the source code is IMHO ultimately irrelevant.

I suspect we would all (or 97.5% of us anyway) like to see Squad survive and thrive a studio. KSP remaining a proprietary intellectual property through which Squad can make a good living is obviously essential to Squads success at this point. Releasing source code to anyone who is not a Squad employee obviously involves some risk to the integrity of the intellectual property and its commercial viability (no?). As such, it would seem the risks to Squad, the game they are developing and their future potential to offer fine gaming to all of us (talented modders and average users) from releasing anything more than Squad wants to release (legal waivers or not) outweigh any putative benefits.

If talented modders really want to go deeper into it, why not seek employment with Squad or something like that?

[Majiir]

I have a few questions though: what is the likelihood of source code being released to "dev approved modders" and its attendant issues? And if the code doesn't get released, what's the next best thing?

I'm not sure how to estimate the probability of a decision Squad will make. NDAs typically cover source code, and I don't think the "attentant issues" are insurmountable. That said, the modding community is still taking baby steps; we only just recently got a namespace ban lifted, and we're working on engaging with Squad in smaller ways. If this does happen, it will be a while into the future. The next best after source code is decompiling (which is against the Squad EULA) and after that, documentation.

Those concerned about a source release hurting commercial viability: there are some concerns, but "a build will show up on bittorrent" is not one of them. The source code is not enough to reconstruct the game; you'd also need all the Unity scenes, all the art assets, and probably a whole lot of proprietary tools and procedures. The bigger concern is that someone, say, rips the entire PQS (terrain) and patched conics system to make a game, but someone could have decompiled to do this anyway. It is a risk, but it's one that can be heavily mitigated and then sealed over with a legal document.

[ravener]

Just as a thought experiment... Would it be helpeful if a decompiler of whatchamacallit was available to modders on request? Even if the code you got to see would be outdated next patch, could you get helpeful info from it?

I am just wondering how much help a peek into the depths of ksp would give...

Majiir? Are you there?