Let's Talk about Mods in Competitive Games

I don't know why it would be logic for you to assume that in this make believe scenario we'd have to be as imitative of what FAF did as conceivably possible

...but i'll just tag that onto misunderstanding how code works... as usual....

no.... the game HAVING to be a standalone when a non-official community hub is made isn't a disease that a game can catch. ......?


So long as Uber communicate tightly with the modders working on this to allow them to utilize play fab, setting up an external client (even with a mod as base play) but still connecting to the same userbase we already have is possible.

he said allowed by design !

that's technically correct. do you not get what that means? (he even said "of" not "in")

The very fact that the game allows you to run client side mods means that it is allowed. Unless you want to argue that UI mods are exploiting a bug.

As for official statements, there doesn't need to be an official statement saying that you can use UI mods. There would need to be an official statement saying that you can't or shouldn't use UI mods. Laws (or rules in this context) restrict behaviors, they don't grant them.

Edit:

To reply to the edited text.

This is your opinion, not a fact.

(whoops you said subjective, so yeah opinion)

and since the devs didn´t give a statement i dare say it´s up to the community to make a stand now ...

a knife can cut people by design too ... doesn´t mean it is allowed ..

Well that's kinda what this thread is all about no? The community is debating the use of UI mods. Until the community reaches a decision, anything that is currently allowed should remain so.

No, a knife can cut by design, period. That's what it was designed to do, cutting. There are laws that say you are not allowed to go around cutting people all willy-nilly (though there are exceptions). There is no comparable law (or rule) that says you can't use a UI mod.

There's a fundamental flaw with your argument that is "mods could be bad or unfair so we should prevent them for the greater good"- lets apply that logic to something most people do at some stage in their life: Driving.

Now, driving IS dangerous. It doesn't matter how many new safety features are added, how much training drivers are given, a few people each year WILL GET KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS.

If we take the 'something bad can happen so prevent it totally' approach, then the only real solution is to ban people driving in case they hurt themselves. That isn't a good idea though, because driving enables so many positive benefits to both individuals and the country as a whole. It enables enterprise, helps relationships, it's essential to modern life. This is why a certain amount of risk is tolerated.

I believe mods in PA are a similar thing- there are some risks affiliated with supporting them. I however think the benefits mean that we should tolerate some downsides. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to manage them, but any such action needs to be *done in moderation*.

a new haiku I take it?

if people drive irresponsibly they lose their license .. delibaretaly or not ..
there is a CLEAR ruleset for driving

if people use maphacks they're banned

So we're saying if people use mods they shouldn't they should get a ban or something? That could work. My point is though you don't reasonably *prevent all driving*, so why prevent the use of *all UI mods*?

Mods also remove the chance of mistake. If you know the enemy is using them, you won't do anything slightly risky because he will see everything. If the players don't make mistakes half of the units become useless.

the worst part honestly is PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY PLAYING "WITH UI MODS" WHEN THEY PLAY VANILLA.

TONS of old UI mods are thrown in there by Uber who really liked what they did and thought it improved the experience. ALL of them help :

• circle to line
• repeat build
• eco efficiency
• ect...

there was a time these mods were giving an "unfair advantage" as well.

And thanks to all those mods the game is better today!

SO stop scarring modders away with your pitchforks and torches folks!!! you're stunting mod growth!!

Worse, modders may decide to not release potentially beneficial mods publicly, so if they did provide an advantage, only a select few would have them.

(Not that I think any UI mods would make THAT much of a difference but some people seem to)

which is poisoning the situation.

yes indeed, well analysed.

Wtf. is your agenda, dude? If you had your way, everyone would go crazy in some futile attempt to control the client side, hack and cheat scares included. Stop that bullshit. PA's philosophy, as has been pointed out to you, is clearly liberal: UI mods are a good thing because they make the game better.

If your only problem is that PAMM is not on the main menu, why don't you just say so.

It might also be worth remembering that there are a huge number of mods that everyone is OK with. The *only* issues are the few that either point to weird UI-limited game mechanics (free energy, auto factory) or to missing features (ubermap).

i clearly stated what my i agenda is
also for what reason are you coursing?
what you want to prove with that?

yea the issue will always be "the few" things that however can have big impact..
the question was not about weither or not mods make the game better thart is not what the discussion is

the discusion is weither or not it is fair if someone uses a mod while the other doesn't for whatever reason ..
and appearantly the stance of the people
who are for mods seems to be "nonmodusers are SOL"

And the answer is "yes", because everyone can use the same mods as they please. It is the very definition of fairness.
Any opposition, however you dress it, comes down to "I don't want to use PAMM, everything should be in vanilla right now", which is ridiculous.

If you take opposition to a UI feature, that's a point you can make. For instance, if you think something like Ubermap shouldn't be in the game, that's something you could try arguing. Likewise for autofactory or infinite build or free energy. But that doesn't appear to be what you're doing. Instead you're going on some nonsensical campaign of principle.

PS: What do you say to the assertion that the mods in question point to possible game flaws? Is your perception of fairness more important than improving the game in this way? As I said in my previous post, the other side is a rabbit-hole of cheat scares and futile "prevention".

of course the way i discuss things
are personal morality and idealism

the purpose however should be clear so how can it be nonsensical ..

so people argue in favor for mods to improve the game right?
why however is it neccesary to push them on ranked or tournaments why not just have them consistently QAted through serieses of custom games like mods such as owom and GA have ..
where people then realy can decide/request to have them in vanila and as such for competitive play ..


and yes i consider fairness and equal default distribution of tools more important than pushing mods unto peoples faces like it has been done in this thread ...
even if that may be traditionalistic