Talk:List of mods

POV

This article has a serious issue with balance and the lack of a neutral point of view. Things like "One of the most incredible addon of Kerbal" are rather ridiculous and so extremely subjective that I think shouldn't belong to the wiki. Sky (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

I agree, and most of those notes are not enough informative. (but some kind of humor needed - for the Kerbalistic taste) NWM (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

You have to know that I moved it from Short list of greatests Mods to the current name. There are also Sorted Mods Library, Useful Tool Mods and Career Mode Compatibles Mods and a discussion (also with pov) on Talk:Sorted Mods Library. — xZise [talk] 10:39, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

Groups

I'd propose using groups as they are on a Curse: Command and Control, Gameplay, Miscellaneous, Parts Pack, Physics, Propulsion, Resources, Science, Ship Systems, Structural and Aerodynamic, Sub-Assembly, Utility and Navigation - that's the official split of mods as supported by SQUAD. Sky (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

I'd not propose these categories, because it doesn't work even on Curse. I think the functions and interest range of the players (realism maniacs, lazzy mechjeb-drovers) would be more useful.

I'm working on the Hungarian page (it is my test sheet) and I've started to make these categories:

realism: changes the game to more realistic, gives more adrenalin for the hardcores (FAR, DRE)

functional: gives realistic functions missing from the game (KAS, Scansat)

GUI extension: doesn't affect the game engine, but makes the game easier to handle. (KAC, VOID...)

Autopilot: makes maneuvers automatically (Mechjeb, KOS)

...

Big part packs: parts, parts and even more parts (B9)

Cheats:... NWM (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

More Icons

tech icons:

green: items in the original tech-tree

blue: gives new nodes, and branches

red: converts the tech-tree

a new "parts" icon:

green: adds few parts (~1-10)

blue: moderate amount of parts (~11-100)

red: wast amount of parts (~101-)

and maybe some more indicators... NWM (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

But isn't that POV as well? For some 100 parts are nothing and for others they are huge. Also some have only some parts but highly modifiable. Also using red and green might look like a “bad thing”. Maybe there could be symbols (and “neutral” colors) indicating if they add technology tree nodes or not. — xZise [talk] 10:43, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

Colours? They symbolize rather the level of modification: risk of possible cross-compatibility problems, and possible memory shortage... And if you have problems with green and red, change them to different icons... NWM (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

How about File:New technology tree node icon.svg and File:Modified technology tree.svg? Changing the colors is easy if there are good suggestions. — xZise [talk] 17:02, 12 July 2014 (CDT)

New tech icon? - One word: perfect! ; Modified icon? - Needs rework, in 32px size doesn't differs enough from the original - the links do not seem well, only nodes do (and it seems to have two roots?). The "≠" marks and different tacts (1-3-4 instead of 1-2-3?) could help to make the difference more visible. NWM (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2014 (CDT)

I wasn't sure how to best portrait a modified technology tree. My approach was that the “path” through the nodes is different (if you look in the SVG code you actually see that the white line begins at the top right node ;) ). What do you mean ith “tacts”? — xZise [talk] 06:02, 13 July 2014 (CDT)