Jump to content

MOD Packs


gl0ryh0und

Recommended Posts

I'm thinking of building and maintaining a custom Mod Pack. This wouldn't utilize whole mods, but really a collection of plugins and parts from different mods to make a unique game experience. What I'm interest from the community is, what mods/parts/plugins would you be interested in seeing in a mod pack. I'm planning on a theme that centers around fun, not realism. That being said I don't have any problems with realism mods, they just have to make the game more fun/deeper/longer.

So what do you think? please post ideas or if this gives you incentive to do one on your own go for it. Just remember that for this mod pack I would need permission of each and every author to include his or her work, so I'm not sure how successful that would be at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I loath mod packs. They feel so much like someone wanting to ride the coattails of mod authors, regardless of actual intention.

Second, you need to define what your mod pack does and what makes it unique, and you might also want to provide something special in it, otherwise it's just a list of mods that someone uses which is pretty bland and boring. If you want to do something like that you could do better by building and maintaining a list of "required" mods for your "pack" or style of play. Check out the Realism Overhaul thread for an idea of how that works. IMO that is the proper way to go about a mod pack. You could add some ModuleManager scripts as appropriate to make your idea special and tie in all the mods that you link to.

Lastly, before you get started make sure you understand how licensing works. It seems you're already committed to gaining permission for use, so that's a good sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Sounds good. Reminds me of Tekkit, that Minecraft modpack. I'd love something like that. I'm sure they'd allow it as long as you credit them, but I'd still get their permission. ;)

:)

Cheers,

Naten. :)

Edited by Naten
forgot closing salutation. :c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the Realism Overhaul, which IMHO is just a Mod Pack.. albeit with its' own mod incorparated, or central to the mod pack. I think the whole idea of a 'play style' is the whole point. take for instance games like minecraft, Mod packs take work to get working and maintain and its' not a simple thing for casual users to know how to get all the mods working. KSP isn't as bothersome as that example, but there are still things to contend with.. memory limits specific bugs and compatibilities.. What I'm suggesting is a Mod Pack that takes the best of the Mods that fit a specific game style and make them work together.

As for riding coat tails, I'm not sure I see your point, the mods and parts there of would still be fully credited back to whom ever created them. It would be more akin to say 'Scott Manly' putting out a list of mods he uses, but instead packaging them and offering them up as a download. (with permission of course) It doesn't steal anybody's thunder, the authors get credit, also doesn't make the mods any better.

The benefits also can be good for players.. you get a mod pack that is, tested, maintained, updated whenever the mods are. The mod pack maintainer ensures that they work together for a reliable game experience.

I love a lot of the mods here, but too many times I've been frustrated because later into the game I find something doesn't work together or a mod has some serious problem or the mods don't lend themselves well to each other.

Javster:

Indeed I plan on a theme, I want to base it around fun, I want it to look somewhat realistic, but also avoid some of the more complex game play mechanics that some mods add. Also I don't plan on using whole mods due to memory and personal preference. I'm partial to the looks of the fustek station parts and kw rocketry.. but I don't think I would take all the parts from mods.. of course it is possible that some mod authors would not want that so I guess it would mean some mods being added or left behind would depend on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I loath mod packs. They feel so much like someone wanting to ride the coattails of mod authors, regardless of actual intention.

Second, you need to define what your mod pack does and what makes it unique, and you might also want to provide something special in it, otherwise it's just a list of mods that someone uses which is pretty bland and boring. If you want to do something like that you could do better by building and maintaining a list of "required" mods for your "pack" or style of play. Check out the Realism Overhaul thread for an idea of how that works. IMO that is the proper way to go about a mod pack. You could add some ModuleManager scripts as appropriate to make your idea special and tie in all the mods that you link to.

Lastly, before you get started make sure you understand how licensing works. It seems you're already committed to gaining permission for use, so that's a good sign.

I really don't think your right about the first point. Modpack authors are simply attempting to help the community by providing an easy way to get all the best mods (usually of a specific type E.G stockalike, sci-fi, colonisation) and sometimes providing an impromptu place where ideas can be merged, linked or simply debloated. However, your point about it not just being a 'modtage' (corny, I know) of successful mods but a group of like minded and simmilar mods is vital to what a modpack should realy be. For instance I would really like to see a stockalike pack of stuff like RLA, KSPX, InflatableHab, SunjumperScience, Starshine and others in a simmilar vein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm familiar with the Realism Overhaul, which IMHO is just a Mod Pack.. albeit with its' own mod incorparated, or central to the mod pack.

And most of the mods that are included were written or are maintained by the guy who put it together. The rest are suggestions.

KSP is much different from Minecraft, where a mod needed to be injected into the main jar file in order to work and you would often have conflicting classes, and a mod pack author could potentially face some coding issues. KSP has no need for such intensive compatibility testing; you could easily provide ModuleManager scripts for compatibility between parts mods and other problems likely need to be solved by the original mod author. You would better serve the community by helping test compatibility and reporting back to the mod authors themselves.

Of course, you're going to do what you want, which is why I suggest you have a coherent, unique theme to your pack.

I really don't think your right about the first point.

It's an opinion so it doesn't matter whether I'm "right" or not.

Edited by regex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interest of being thorough and understanding the IP license that is used so often by the mod authors, I wanted to see what the license allowed and what it prohibited.

I've been reading the GNU version 3.

Section 5. seems to give permission to modified versions so long as copyright claim is maintained for the original creator, and that the modified is dated and claimed by the person modifying the work.

So as long as I give proper notice and transfer of license it seems that I could do what I please, provided it is not to harm or damage the original copyright.

"Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it"

This GNU sounds like complete trash.. has anyone heard of it actually being enforced? successfully? truely it seems that its' only purpose seems to protect ones claim to being the creator, but at that point it essentially allows the community to do with it as they please.

Adding conditions to your license that contradict the wording of the GNU license itself automatically make it null and void,

"Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users"

so you can't distribute the GNU with conditions like "you can use but not modify."

This GNU sounds like complete trash.. has anyone heard of it actually being enforced? successfully? truely it seems that its' only purpose seems to protect ones claim to being the creator, but at that point it essentially allows the community to do with it as they please.

Either I've read this license wrong or the general impression for what this license does is incorrect.

am I right or wrong? anyone care to illuminate me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GPL claims to protect the rights of the software author(s) and users by preventing the source from ever being closed, and preventing others from using the source in a manner that would (potentially or actually) close the source. In other words, the software must always remain free (as in freedom) and it does so in a "viral" fashion. As to your question of enforceability, the Linux kernel is GPLv2 and seems to have stood the test of time. If you want more information about that, look up the Free Software Foundation (and beware the dogma).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mod packs are unnecessary for KSP and provide no benefit. They were a good thing for minecraft because mods were for a long time normally incompatable, this os because of minecraft's various registry indexes, block ID, item ID, gui ID, etc, which allowed mods to statically bind numerical IDs within a small range. If two mods bound the same ID, lots of stuff went wrong. But also Minecraft had actual mods, modifications to the sourcecode, if two mods changed the same class, the whole game might might break. Forge solved most of these programs by having a system to assign IDs automatically, and remove the need for any other mods to change minecraft's code directly. Effectively Forge changed minecraft from a Moding system to what we have, a plugin system. KSP mods never change the base code, just hooking into and adding to it. KSP doesnt use numerical IDs, it uses strings.

It's very rare that KSP add-ons ever conflict and when they do it's usually because they add similar but opposing features, like having more that one life support mod.

Modpacks for KSP are simply unnecessary, and many authors will be against having somebody else maintain a download of what will still be their mod, as opposed to a new fork of it that they are not responsible for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GPL claims to protect the rights of the software author(s) and users by preventing the source from ever being closed, and preventing others from using the source in a manner that would (potentially or actually) close the source. In other words, the software must always remain free (as in freedom) and it does so in a "viral" fashion. As to your question of enforceability, the Linux kernel is GPLv2 and seems to have stood the test of time. If you want more information about that, look up the Free Software Foundation (and beware the dogma).

Okay, so I really don't have it wrong. If I wanted to write my own linux Gui or version and distribute it with the kernal I could do so freely, without seeking permission from the developers of the kernal. Actually I could do anything I want so long as I don't try to claim the original work as my own and impose copyrights <Copyleft>. So long as the original creator retains credit for creating said works, I am free to modify and distribute to my leisure, as long as I provide the license with the distributed modification I create, allowing others to do the same to my derivative.

Correct?

I think I get it, but I don't see how this protects mod creators. In actually it only protects their claim to being the original creator. Anyone can legally and freely modify and distribute their works under the guise of this license, so long as they follow the terms therein, which cannot contradict with the copyleft intended nature of the license.

so seeking permission for something like what I'm considering is not necessary, it's just polite. Not that I intend to disrespect any mod authors wishes or creativity, I'm just educating myself. I haven't seen anything in the license that states permission must be sought.

I ask you Regex as a Mod creator yourself, you seem opposed to this form of distribution/modification but perhaps that's just me reading between the lines too much. Do mod authors consider their works safe from modification and redistribution without their permission under this license?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mod packs are unnecessary for KSP and provide no benefit. They were a good thing for minecraft because mods were for a long time normally incompatable, this os because of minecraft's various registry indexes, block ID, item ID, gui ID, etc, which allowed mods to statically bind numerical IDs within a small range. If two mods bound the same ID, lots of stuff went wrong. But also Minecraft had actual mods, modifications to the sourcecode, if two mods changed the same class, the whole game might might break. Forge solved most of these programs by having a system to assign IDs automatically, and remove the need for any other mods to change minecraft's code directly. Effectively Forge changed minecraft from a Moding system to what we have, a plugin system. KSP mods never change the base code, just hooking into and adding to it. KSP doesnt use numerical IDs, it uses strings.

It's very rare that KSP add-ons ever conflict and when they do it's usually because they add similar but opposing features, like having more that one life support mod.

Modpacks for KSP are simply unnecessary, and many authors will be against having somebody else maintain a download of what will still be their mod, as opposed to a new fork of it that they are not responsible for.

Oh I understand that KSP doesn't suffer from the same problems, what I was thinking is a mod pack that use parts of other mods, perhaps some whole mods. to create a unique game style/play through. For instance, for my taste KAS simply doesn't work well, but it may have parts that would work well as they are in a different capacity.

Also many are aware of the memory limitations that we currently face, limiting our choices in part packs.. you want B9, KW rocketry, LLL, THSS, Fustek and Novapunch, but it bloats the memory and crashes constantly. Perhaps in B9 you don't want all those panels or engines.. or certain body types.. but making these changes for a lot of casual players isn't worth the trouble.

It's not the same I agree, but I think there is room for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask you Regex as a Mod creator yourself, you seem opposed to this form of distribution/modificationt perhaps that's just me reading between the lines too much. Do mod authors consider their works safe from modification and redistribution without their permission under this license?

If a mod author doesn't want people using their source or distributing their work, they'll license accordingly. Check out Kethane for an example. As for me, were you to ask me whether you can include my mod in your pack I'd tell you that I'd very much prefer you didn't (for the reasons both I and Greys have pointed out), but there is nothing in the software license I use that prevents you from doing so.

You'll find that most licenses around here are CC-BY-NC-SA or GPL, with a few notable exceptions that are either less (me, for instance) or more (Kethane) restrictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a mod author doesn't want people using their source or distributing their work, they'll license accordingly. Check out Kethane for an example. As for me, were you to ask me whether you can include my mod in your pack I'd tell you that I'd very much prefer you didn't (for the reasons both I and Greys have pointed out), but there is nothing in the software license I use that prevents you from doing so.

You'll find that most licenses around here are CC-BY-NC-SA or GPL, with a few notable exceptions that are either less (me, for instance) or more (Kethane) restrictive.

Well that is disappointing to hear. Frankly I find a lot of redundant things in mods, so much duplicated effort. Buggy functionality/parts. Sometimes 1 thing / part can ruin a whole mod or it is simply too complicated or tries to hard to do something totally unique, but I guess there is nothing for it. If I happen to hit on a brilliant unique mix of parts and plugins, it is a shame that the community at large is not compatible to such a thing being shared in a whole easy to use package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about KSP mod packs I don't like is the version mismatches. If you have 5 mods in your pack, you need to update every time one of them does, or you have more than one version of a mod being actively downloaded. Then you're downloading 4 mods that aren't updated just to update one that is. See the issue? You end up wasting a lot of bandwidth if the modpack is kept current (and it most certainly should be)

And then during an update who answers the issues about that mod that crop up? The modpack guy? Nope. They end up in the main mods page, and the original author has extra steps to figure out compatibility issues.

and then maintaining a mod pack is fun... for a month or two maybe. But you're probably going to get bored and move on, or want to work on your own thing. Then you have a modpack floating around unmaintained.

There are a few specific times when it could be desirable to fork a protect that is being actively developed by its creator. Its probably just common decency to talk to the creator first and discuss things in most of those cases, to see if its something they could just do on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about KSP mod packs I don't like is the version mismatches. If you have 5 mods in your pack, you need to update every time one of them does, or you have more than one version of a mod being actively downloaded. Then you're downloading 4 mods that aren't updated just to update one that is. See the issue? You end up wasting a lot of bandwidth if the modpack is kept current (and it most certainly should be)

And then during an update who answers the issues about that mod that crop up? The modpack guy? Nope. They end up in the main mods page, and the original author has extra steps to figure out compatibility issues.

and then maintaining a mod pack is fun... for a month or two maybe. But you're probably going to get bored and move on, or want to work on your own thing. Then you have a modpack floating around unmaintained.

There are a few specific times when it could be desirable to fork a protect that is being actively developed by its creator. Its probably just common decency to talk to the creator first and discuss things in most of those cases, to see if its something they could just do on their own.

I see your point, I don't pay for bandwidth so sometimes I forget that most do.

fork a project? can't say I've considered that. To be honest I'm not sure I would have all the skills to do a mod proper justice, mainly the art/textures defeat me. I tried to make a structural mod but I ran into problems that made it unlikely to work, so I've been looking at other packs and how I could optimize the parts eliminate the items/features I would never use and keep the brilliant stuff, that's when I though of a modpack. however seeing how much friction that might create perhaps it is best to not pursue that.

Perhaps I should go back and revisit my original mod concept. I should consider recruiting an artist. lol

But on a serious note:

I really appreciate you all coming out and helping me understand how you feel about the whole idea, truly I value this community and wouldn't violate the trust given from the rest of you simply to get glorification, lol despite my handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so I really don't have it wrong. If I wanted to write my own linux Gui or version and distribute it with the kernal I could do so freely, without seeking permission from the developers of the kernal. Actually I could do anything I want so long as I don't try to claim the original work as my own and impose copyrights <Copyleft>. So long as the original creator retains credit for creating said works, I am free to modify and distribute to my leisure, as long as I provide the license with the distributed modification I create, allowing others to do the same to my derivative.

Correct?

I think I get it, but I don't see how this protects mod creators. In actually it only protects their claim to being the original creator. Anyone can legally and freely modify and distribute their works under the guise of this license, so long as they follow the terms therein, which cannot contradict with the copyleft intended nature of the license.

so seeking permission for something like what I'm considering is not necessary, it's just polite. Not that I intend to disrespect any mod authors wishes or creativity, I'm just educating myself. I haven't seen anything in the license that states permission must be sought.

I ask you Regex as a Mod creator yourself, you seem opposed to this form of distribution/modification but perhaps that's just me reading between the lines too much. Do mod authors consider their works safe from modification and redistribution without their permission under this license?

The "Open" copyrights (GPL CC, etc.) are there not necessarily to protect the author, but rather protect the software. Ever heard of OpenWRT? A few years back in the early days of wireless routers, Linksys contracted a company to build them a wireless router. That company added in code from busybox (licensed in GPL). This meant that it was a derived work, and should keep the license in-tact. The free software foundation ended up suing Linksys, who had to go to Broadcom to release their proprietary drivers at the tune of several million(billion?) dollars under the original BusyBox license.

In my case, I use the MIT license as I would like to be credited, but as a developer myself, I also appreciate the ability of other commercial entities (ie. Squad, developers who want to use my shaders, etc.) to be able to add my source into theirs without fear of retribution from the copyright holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...