Let's give SQUAD our point of view.

[tntristan12]

*record scratching* ...What?

I know, I know. Please put your flamethrowers down long enough to hear me out! This is not intended to be a thread bashing SQUAD by any means. In fact, I have the greatest admiration for the things they've accomplished so far. Part of that is the extensive framework that they have laid down for players to modify the game to suit their needs. That's a brilliant innovation! I'm glad that we can look for features we'd like to see in the game and then download them from third parties who have every bit of respect for SQUAD's work as I do.

And yet I'm starting to get the feeling that this is part of the problem. Now, I'm not going to ask SQUAD to hurry up their production schedule or implement features I'd like to see in the game now, or any number of entitled demands that so many have tossed their way. However, I'm starting to get worried that KSP is beginning to show signs of sprawl - expanding outwards farther and faster than it is expanding upwards. Because modmakers have been so expert in their expansion of core gameplay features (I could list them ad infinitum: MechJeb, FAR, EVE, Kethane, KAS, and so on...) that the devs appear to no longer have any interest in taking these matters into their own hands. There's nothing wrong with adding a new feature here and there, and I can see the appeal in doing so (how many threads have we seen in which newer players complain of not enough features in recent release), but we are now at the point where I think rather than adding new features, they should be improving the features they've already implemented.

Classic case-in-point example: How long have the Mk. 2 and 3 cockpits been in the game and yet *still* don't have an interior views? And that's one of the easiest to address! Science gathering is a mess still - completely divorced from the main body of gameplay (though I suspect and sincerely hope that the upcoming contracts system will remedy this somewhat). The atmospheric drag model is outdated to the point of becoming a running joke, with deadly re-entry still a thing of the distant and unspoken future.

That's one thing that is bothering me. Another might actually seem hypocritical of me to bring up since I just mentioned I'm not pleased with the development of existing features in favor of adding new ones, but bear with me... Perhaps what is upsetting me the most, we've visited and re-visited the issue of a lack of end-game content with no indication that any such popular concepts as in-situ resource utilization, other solar systems, and extraplanetary colonies are even being considered. The reason I don't think it hypocritical for me to say this is because these are not features I am expecting tomorrow (literally or figuratively), but in one way or another they've been discounted and ruled out as part of the game's future development.

That in itself is not a problem. The developers have every right to implement the features they want and leave out the ones they don't... but the nature of discourse is to voice one's opinion with the hope of being heard. That, and the very reasons provided seem to conflict with previous precedents set by SQUAD in a very direct way. The biggest example I can cite is a previous discussion on implementing other star systems: IIRC the official stance was "We cannot do this with time warp alone, which requires some sort of warp drive. This takes KSP out of the realm of science fiction, and places it purely in that of fiction." However, this seems to conflict directly with SQUAD's previous stance of "gameplay before realism." With all of the gameplay implications having other star systems would provide, I see no reason why a break from realism is such a bad thing. Especially since HarvesteR himself once advocated an Albuciere (spelling?) Drive as part of KSP's possible future.

I would like not to dwell on such specifics however. My point is that when taken as a whole, these "offenses" (and I call them that for lack of a better word, though I in no way mean to suggest that SQUAD is intentionally trying to antagonize the community) point towards a growing trend towards the watering down or outright elimination of important features, the over-reliance on third party modifications to improve the existing structure, and the perpetuation of confusing policies such as "gameplay before realism... except when gameplay makes the game unrealistic."

Perhaps I am over-reacting, or misunderstanding the problem. In either case, I am not trying to call for a dismantling of SQUAD or the drastic alteration of its handling of the game. KSP is, and always will be SQUAD's to do with as it will. However, as a catalyst for discussion I am interested in seeing if others feel as I do. If so, perhaps a discussion will provide SQUAD the input it needs in order to continually drive its work towards excellence. That's the least that I can hope for!

Edited May 12, 2014 by tntristan12
Made a less contentious title because my blood pressure has settled and I don't want to offend anyone.

[Red Iron Crown]

So is there an actual suggestion in there, or just commenting that the features you want don't seem to be important to the devs, or aren't ready yet?

[TimMartland]

I agree wholeheartedly with many of the things in this post. The ARM pack, while really good, felt like SQUAD was adding new stuff before they had consolidated. The prime example of this is, as you say, the Mk2-3 cockpits, the aerodynamics (Which can be improved massively, a la FAR) and the lack of any mention of resources, dedicated base systems, and a science system that works 100%.

However, I do have to disagree with you on the 'warp drive' issue. I am aware that this is the subject of some contention (Dripping with sarcasm there) but I do think that it would be a bad idea for squad to completely depart from the theme they have set. The game parts are all analogues of real world parts or at least near future tech, so something so far-fetched would seem horribly out of place. However, these arguments have been going back and forth for a while, so I don't think me saying that will have a massive effect on peoples opinions. However, I think the drive should not be added simply because of how much contention it has caused within KSPs friendly little community. Such a rift would doubtless be unhealthy for the game, as a 'You're either with US, or you're with THEM' stance would be pretty nasty. I think there are alternate solutions to be looked to, such as having a dense galactic cluster rather than an earth-like distance, an extra x10^+1 on the TW and some near future tech that is far more viable then a magical space-time bending megaengine. The current solar system could also do with some new planets (-cough- Neptune -cough-).

But I digress, this is not the topic at hand and I thoroughly agree with the OPs general stance.

And lets face it, resources would be awesome.

EDIT: @Red Iron Crown You seem to have misinterpreted the OP for someone demanding 'moar features!' I think the point he wants to get across is more about the direction the game is going, and whether SQUAD is going to have issues if they move outward rather than upwards.

Edited May 12, 2014 by TimMartland

[tntristan12]

So is there an actual suggestion in there, or just commenting that the features you want don't seem to be important to the devs, or aren't ready yet?

No suggestion. Thus the discussion tag. If I was suggesting I would use the suggestion tag.

If you mean in the overarching sense, my suggestion would be to make the next update (after 0.24) about addressing the outdatedness of current features (i.e. building up rather than out). Perhaps even take an official community poll to see what most people want improved.

[Sirrobert]

First I'd like to say good post. Criticism is the root of all progress. So no need to be that defencive in my opinion

I can't remember where I heard it, but: "Without it, we'd all be wearing rocks for hats"

Anyway, on to the actual stuf.

I have to disagree with the first half of your post.

I think it's more important to lay the foundation of KSP, before they start polishing it. At the moment, Squad is still busy laying the foundation of the career system (science, contracts, money, reputation).

Once this foundation is complete, they should get polishing what we have, and adding the fancy things (like resources).

Now the second part, I agree with. I have high hopes that, eventually, we will get other galaxies and stuf like that.

However I also hope that they first finish the core game, before thinking about those things. We could, for example, get them in DLCs after the game is complete. I can't remember where exactly, but I believe I have seen some posts suggesting that squad is not discounting that option.

On the mods aspect, there will always be mods for games like this. There will always be people that want to play with reentry heat, and people that don't want to play with it.

However, and I hope good developers understand this, they can never be substidude for core game mechanics in a finished game. But that's something for later

[tntristan12]

My main issue with mods is the lack of official compatibility support. Let's say you want proper aerodynamics (FAR) but you also want deadly reentry (DRE). They may not necessarily work together (I am intentionally using these mods as an even though I know full well they are compatible with each other). One could argue both as fully necessary features but without official support, the player has to choose one or the other. That doesn't seem fair for a game in its final state. It gets a pass for now because the game is in development, but possible conflicts like this should probably be addressed before adding entirely new features into the mix.

[sal_vager]

How would Squad provide such support to stuff that's made by others and not in Squads control?

Isn't it enough that they have deliberately made KSP as moddable as they have?

[Stargate525]

Isn't it enough that they have deliberately made KSP as moddable as they have?

No. No it isn't.

Mods are not an acceptable replacement for terrible endgame, or half-implemented features. The constant reply being trotted out whenever people ask about improved aerodynamics, in-situ resources, etcetera etcetera, is 'just get the mod for it!' I'm worried that soon, that will be the official response as well.

[tntristan12]

How would Squad provide such support to stuff that's made by others and not in Squads control?

By making them part of the stock game (see below). Bringing it "into the fold," if you will...

Isn't it enough that they have deliberately made KSP as moddable as they have?

Short answer? No. It isn't.

Long answer? It's fantastic that they have done so, but ultimately it's a temporary solution. We've already seen instances of mods being rendered obsolete by advances in the stock game. Perfect example: Ferram's Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod. This was implemented in the ARM release, although Ferram's KJR continues to exist because it provides even further reinforcement and other features beyond the scope of the stock game. In this particular instance we reached a harmony between stock and mod content. Before that we had Lagsbane, which was implemented as a stock feature entirely. Want another example? Multiplayer was made into a mod AFTER Squad had said it wasn't possible / wasn't on the docket / wasn't being considered / what have you, but shortly after KMP's release we got an official announcement from Squad that they were going to "seriously consider" it. This is a precedent that clearly exists. All I'm saying is that there are mods that exist to enhance existing features of the game and those should be considered for the "stockization" treatment as well.

[rtxoff]

As long as things like warp drives can be included into the game by using mods i am fine with that. Also the game is under heavy development and it is still not released yet officially so complaing about part x not complete and missing part y is just unfair. It is not like they are doing nothing. The ARM update was one of the biggest yet and it looks like the next one is going to top that. Missing the IVA of one or more parts is not gamebreaking in any way. Maybe it's just me but i rather see new gameplay features then new IVA's. Also if i really want IVA i can get them already by modding . So no problems at all from my side of view.

[tntristan12]

As long as things like warp drives can be included into the game by using mods i am fine with that. Also the game is under heavy development and it is still not released yet officially so complaing about part x not complete and missing part y is just unfair. It is not like they are doing nothing.

100% agreed. However...

The ARM update was one of the biggest yet and it looks like the next one is going to top that.

ARM did a few things under the hood that I really admire. However, the introduction of things like asteroids and the SLS parts smacks to me of effort that could have been better placed elsewhere. Why are we adding things to do in the middle of space when we have so many moons and planets with nothing to do on them except gather soil and plant flags? Perhaps if they had integrated the ARM concept itself better into the current science implementation I'd be more forgiving, but as it stands asteroid collections serves no purpose with respect to features already implemented. It exists on the periphery that doesn't need so much attention at this point. Thus when I say they are building out, I am saying that such features (while entertaining and certainly deserve their own merit) represent a misplacing of development resources.

EDIT: As for 0.24, I have high hopes that it is going to address some of my concerns. Especially those revolving around science gathering and career mode progression. Until it comes out though, I am withholding my judgement and basing my observations on the updates and announcements that have been provided to date.

Missing the IVA of one or more parts is not gamebreaking in any way. Maybe it's just me but i rather see new gameplay features then new IVA's. Also if i really want IVA i can get them already by modding . So no problems at all from my side of view.

The problem is not that missing IVA textures (as but a single example...) is gamebreaking, but that it is an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise complete feature. How much effort would have to be expended to rectify this? To finally check off the IVA feature as complete rather than *mostly* complete? What about other areas of the game that have similar blemishes? How many times have we heard "we are laying the groundwork for future updates" only to have said future updates get pushed farther and farther into the... well, future? That bothers me more than the missing content itself. It's not like Squad is lacking for any work to do, and new peripheral features can wait.

[rtxoff]

Well look to it from this point of view:

When you build a house, are you doing the decorating stuff first or will you begin with a stable fundament and then move upwards? Only because the first etage is finished i won't start adding windows into it because they can get ruined by the following works. And it is very similar with programing stuff, you can't start polishing until you have a stable fundament. Only because the asteroids not spawning like people would like them in the future does not mean they can't change it at some point but the most important thing about it is that they are there already. I don't think this discussion makes any sense, better wait until the basic structure of the house is finished and then propose which colour the rooms should be.

[iDan122]

When I ask about an important feature to be implemented (Resource Mining, Star Systems, Gas Giants, Solar Panels). I get the response "There are mods for that'. But a game isn't made to be left half-done and make the modders do the job for the devs! Who'd buy a game for which to be complete you had to download 3rd party mods? Many don't even know HOW to install them, and mods are very unreliable as they can change/corrupt your game.

Squad shouldn't aim so much for career but first create a base for that.

[tntristan12]

That's one philosophy. However, I see program development as more like building the house room by room. Coding has the advantage of being more modular than a house, so the analogy isn't 100% accurate. On my projects, for example, when I write a function/script/feature/whatever, I try to get it the highest degree of completion possible given the current state of all possible dependencies. For the asteroid example, there was nothing preventing the injection of a non-controllable debris-like game object into the save. Rather than spend the resources on getting the textures and the procedural generation et. cetera, more pressing matters could have been attended. Besides, if the devs keep adding new features they may eventually lose track of all the changes that need to be made on existing ones. They've said as much themselves. I think it's the purpose of threads like this one to remind them of the little things that have thus far slipped through the cracks.

Look. Nobody is saying that they should scrap all their work so far and cancel 0.24, or that any of the updates before now have been efforts of vanity. I for one am very pleased with their work! If they announced tomorrow that they want to make 0.25 an optimization update and clean up some stray lines of code (as they've been wont to do from time to time), I would not complain. I'm sure someone would complain that they weren't adding anything new or what have you, but the importance in shoring up what they've already built cannot be overstated. Besides: isn't it a win-win if they can improve the current state of the game without having to develop tons and tons of new resources? We get a better, more refined product and they get to take a break from all the thinking about ways to implement the new stuff.

[regex]

Eh, I'm pretty happy with the direction the devs are taking. Sure, there's a lot of cleanup still needed but they've actually taken the time to deal with critical cleanup when it's needed, so I can wait for sprucing up parts and such.

I am quite happy with the science mechanic as it stands and I think it'll be far more meaningful once the rest of career mode has been added (I, for one, don't need some "achievement-based progression" or railroaded goals to make my game interesting, I write my own space program's history).

The resource implementation looked like a completely grindy mess and I am quite happy that didn't make it into stock, especially if any of it would have been "required" play. Seriously, Kethane may be one of the best mods out there from a programming standpoint, but the gameplay it adds essentially amounts to "hurry up and wait"; I can't imagine that with more resources and actual interdependencies.

Lastly, before you poo poo the ARM update, remember that SQUAD had a great opportunity to work with NASA to make that happen; I'm pretty happy they didn't pass that up to fix some IVAs that can safely be pushed further back.

About the only thing I agree with is a better aerodynamic model and reentry heat having a higher priority, although both come with their own cans of worms and both can wait (hopefully before multiplayer).

[Skyrunner27]

I am having the severest case of deja vu. I feel like we have this conversation every other month, and it always boils down to the point of Squad having a problem continuing the big stuff or whatever you want. Also I am partially on your side I do feel as if somethings have been neglected for a long time despite there being solutions that are tried and tested. Things that would do nothing but improve the experience of the game, but don't get angry because usually when they get to implementing something their solution is better then mods. Look at docking, rovers, eva, all had some sort of mod prior to development that had solutions that were rigged together using existing code. I mean we make our pleas to Suad and they listen to a certain extent. It is what caused the redo of science in .23. Remember ARM was .23.5 not .24 meaning it would have less development then a normal update. I will see if I can find the article but do to the search engine it is almost impossible.

EDIT

Found it.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/entries/303-A-rant-about-development-asymptotes

Edited May 12, 2014 by Skyrunner27

[tntristan12]

I certainly can't deny that ARM is awesome! And the collaboration with NASA was certainly one of the reasons it was so. Believe me, I'm more than happy to stick the official NASA logo on anything and everything in my current career save! We're past the point of changing the content in 0.23.5 or 0.24. The purpose of this thread is to express my hopes for future updates, give my concerns about the announcements they've made so far (some of which I'm just downright unhappy with), and lastly ask you guys what you think. By the way, the input so far has been excellent!

Regex: About Kethane. The "hurry-up-and-wait" nature of its gameplay is only at the micromanagement level. What Kethane provides (for me at least) is the ability to run more interesting and varied mission types. I can do a scanning run, then build a mining colony with life support and infrastructure designed to keep a small crew alive for as long as possible. Those mission provide me hours upon hours of planning the missions, designing the equipment, et. cetera. A small fraction of that time is actually spent mining, and to be frank, once I've started mining I just leave it in autopilot and move on to other things. Those hours of planning and execution, however, are more varied and interesting missions than anything I could run in the stock game. One of my favorite missions was a crew-juggling mission to populate my kethane base on the Mun! At no point during this process did I feel "railroaded" with artifcial gameplay mechanics. All of the challenge was self-imposed, but it was made possible by the addition of an update that ultimately is in fact grindy and repetitive.

Now, apply this to other features that I have not mentioned, and you've got yourself a wide variety of features and mission types to choose from! Perhaps some can be provided to you by contracts. Others will inevitably be self-imposed challenges. Features like this provide the opportunities to make them happen! I think when these discussions pop up, they usually place more emphasis on the destination rather than the journey. Yes, eventually resource mining amounts to "wait for the meter to fill up," but getting to that point is MUCH more exciting than "let's go into orbit around this body so I can take an EVA report so I can finally unlock that engine which will let me get into orbit around this other body and take another EVA report so I can finally unlock that other engine which will let me get to orbit around this other body so I..." etc

Edited May 12, 2014 by tntristan12

[Dunbaratu]

I'm not in agreement with most of what the OP says, but one thing I do agree on is the idea that the existence of a mod that does something should not be used as a reason to avoid putting that something in the stock game. It gets really tiring to hear people falsely claim that having mods means there's no reason for the stock game to have a feature.

Mod writers are volunteers who are under zero obligation to make their mods compatible with each other. And sometimes even if they want to do so the task is made much harder by the inability to alter the underlying infrastructure to make commonly shared things use one unified set of code.

[rkman]

This sub-forum was created by Squad for the purpose of them knowing our point of view (which might be more diverse than you think). Squad knows, but they are under no obligation to follow anyone's point of view but their own.

When we took early access to play this game we all knew that we don't know what it is going to be like when it is finished.

[rtxoff]

That's one philosophy. However, I see program development as more like building the house room by room. Coding has the advantage of being more modular than a house, so the analogy isn't 100% accurate. On my projects, for example, when I write a function/script/feature/whatever, I try to get it the highest degree of completion possible given the current state of all possible dependencies. For the asteroid example, there was nothing preventing the injection of a non-controllable debris-like game object into the save. Rather than spend the resources on getting the textures and the procedural generation et. cetera, more pressing matters could have been attended. Besides, if the devs keep adding new features they may eventually lose track of all the changes that need to be made on existing ones. They've said as much themselves. I think it's the purpose of threads like this one to remind them of the little things that have thus far slipped through the cracks.

Look. Nobody is saying that they should scrap all their work so far and cancel 0.24, or that any of the updates before now have been efforts of vanity. I for one am very pleased with their work! If they announced tomorrow that they want to make 0.25 an optimization update and clean up some stray lines of code (as they've been wont to do from time to time), I would not complain. I'm sure someone would complain that they weren't adding anything new or what have you, but the importance in shoring up what they've already built cannot be overstated. Besides: isn't it a win-win if they can improve the current state of the game without having to develop tons and tons of new resources? We get a better, more refined product and they get to take a break from all the thinking about ways to implement the new stuff.

Well i guarantee you that if you build your houses like you program that houses will fall apart at some point :-)

No, jokes aside, if programming would be that modular as you are talking about then ksp moders would have no hard time adapting the mod's to work with each other. I fear it is not at easy as that. And because i also programmed some stuff already i know it is hard to implement features not thought about from the begining. If you continue to add features not being on the original blueprint your house/programm is going to fall apart at some point. That is often the point where people get rid of all the code and begin again with version number 2.0

Also the discussion of integrating existing mod's into stock game just makes me go nuts. For example you buy a car today, at some point you are not satisfied enough with the power of the engine. The next thing what happens you are going to mod your car and integrate a turbocharger into it. After that you are mounting some different wheels onto it because stock is not fancy enough. Then you begin to realize the wheels are not supporting the added speed you are gaining from the charger. And then you want to sue the maker of the car because your mods do not fit together??? Sorry but i fail to see the responsibility the dev's have for integrating mod's into their game. This is solely up to the modders/players.

[regex]

What Kethane provides (for me at least) is the ability to run more interesting and varied mission types.

Yeah, I don't find that at all. Kethane (for instance) is simply another way to refuel. Extraplanetary Launchpads ends up being just another way to get craft places faster; there still isn't anything to really do with them once you get them there. I get why people want the complexity: At the end of the day it makes them feel like they have more to do (they do, I suppose) but it doesn't add any real "meaningful" or, really, varied gameplay on the meta level.

At no point during this process did I feel "railroaded" with artifcial gameplay mechanics.

You're mixing up my statements, nowhere did I say resources were "artificial railroaded gameplay", that was regarding people who want the science process to match the real world or have some sort of idiotic progression that railroads you into achieving things in the same set order every single time you start a new save game, which just rankles me to no end. It's a stupid idea.

Now, apply this to other features that I have not mentioned, and you've got yourself a wide variety of features and mission types to choose from! Perhaps some can be provided to you by contracts. Others will inevitably be self-imposed challenges. Features like this provide the opportunities to make them happen! I think when these discussions pop up, they usually place more emphasis on the destination rather than the journey. Yes, eventually resource mining amounts to "wait for the meter to fill up," but getting to that point is MUCH more exciting than "let's go into orbit around this body so I can take an EVA report so I can finally unlock that engine which will let me get into orbit around this other body and take another EVA report so I can finally unlock that other engine which will let me get to orbit around this other body so I..." etc

KSP and sandbox gameplay is about setting and meeting your own goals. If your only goal is to unlock the tech tree, you're going to get bored quickly.

[tntristan12]

Sorry but i fail to see the responsibility the dev's have for integrating mod's into their game. This is solely up to the modders/players.

I think you're confusing my point. I'm not talking about integrating mods into the stock game. I'm talking about implementing features that fit logically within the existing structure / tone / experience of the stock game, thus removing the need for mod-makers to implement them themselves. This native support would provide such features with a level of security that no mod-maker regardless of skill can maintain.

[rtxoff]

I think you're confusing my point. I'm not talking about integrating mods into the stock game. I'm talking about implementing features that fit logically within the existing structure / tone / experience of the stock game, thus removing the need for mod-makers to implement them themselves. This native support would provide such features with a level of security that no mod-maker regardless of skill can maintain.

No you are talking exactly about that, how you formulate it is not important the outcome is the same.

Mod makers are only as powerful as the moding API they get. So a discussion that would make sense would be one where we talk about how much access we get through the API.

For example being able to randomize planets and stuff.

[Vanamonde]

Are there features that are incomplete and no "end-game"? This is 100% correct, because KSP is an unfinished, work-in-progress. It's premature to conclude that because something is not present in the game's unfnished state, that that thing never will be included in the game.

The ARM pack, while really good, felt like SQUAD was adding new stuff before they had consolidated.

This is, again, 100% correct, and 100% beside the point. Squad got a chance to do a joint project with NASA, and so they jumped at the chance to add some features to the game which were not part of the original plan. Yes indeed, ARM was something from outside, inserted into KSP's development before some previously introduced features were completed. But aren't you glad they did it? How much fun have you been having with asteroids and the claw?

As for including mods in the game, many people are not stopping to think about what this would require. Take a mod that has flawlessly code. That doesn't mean that it was written in the same way that Squad writes code, which means that it would need to be adjusted and re-written so that Squad's guys can maintain it. That may sound trivial, but anyone who has taken a programming class can tell you that documenting the code and writing it in a standard way is considered every bit as important as the code itself, so that those coming along behind you know which parts do what. But even that is assuming that the mod maker has implemented his invention in a way that will continue to work with future versions of KSP, so that it doesn't need to be reworked when Squad adopts the mod's code. How likely is that? You all know how many mods stop working each time a new version of KSP comes out. Lastly, Squad is a profit-making business while modders are unpaid volunteers. What happens when Squad starts making money off of the mod-maker's code? Legal arrangements have to be made before that transition can take place. On several occasions, Squad has dealt with this issue by hiring the mod maker. But they can't do that with the maker of every mod they wanted to incorporate into the game. Long story short, including a mod into stock KSP is NOT a simple matter.

As for the unfinished cockpits, it is my understanding that they were started, and then it was decided to entirely replace them. The original versions worked, though, so there was no real need to remove them.

[tntristan12]

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't modders already do that? I don't use a lot of mods, but I think I've seen a few alternate planet packs around. NovaSilisko's Alternis pack being one of the most extreme I've seen. I haven't used it, but I was under the impression that KSP's API was rather extensive. I applaud them for this! However, as many others have said, just because that infrastructure is in place and mods are available that add or improve on a certain feature doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the stock game. There are multiple reasons for this!

As for this comment:

No you are talking exactly about that, how you formulate it is not important the outcome is the same.

I just recently stumbled across a post by HarvesteR that suggests that merely absorbing a mod into the stock game and properly implementing it as a feature are not, in fact, the same process. You can find said post here. I personally found it to be quite enlightening, and explains why some mods are not implemented already. However, I feel that it goes to further reinforce the point that some features need a proper implementation, rather than reliance on third parties. We're basically saying the same thing at this point.