To MOD Or Not To MOD

[Hatch]

To MOD or not to MOD

That is the question before us fellow players, this thread started at the Sonalysts forum, but it was suggested by some contributors to the discussion that it be moved here to continue a spirited debate.

I say Not to MOD, the prevalent reasons I stated for my stance were mainly rooted in the fact that MODS were created by amateurs and tinkerers not fully qualified to mess with the natural order of life, which is to rewrite the developers behavioral code to seemingly fix bugs which they (the Modders) thought ought to be fixed or remade according to their whim.

An opinion that validated To MOD, was offered by a gentleman who described opting for a MOD when a developer ceased to produce patches for a sim to correct bugs present from the original design, in lieu of the developer’s support, a lot of gamers do opt to go for a MOD, never thinking of the consequences that it can bring to the gameplay, and why not, their computers integrity, one can not discard the evil intentioned modder to include a virus or Trojan or whatever into the MOD to disrupt or even damage your rig. I remember one MOD made for Falcon 4.0, where during the mission loading, it displayed pictures of babies in the center of the screen, though it was harmless, it serves to illustrate how easy it is to infiltrate your system by blindly trusting a source not reputably established (A Modder)

Then there are online gaming groups that as a prerequisite to join their ranks one must have a MOD, be it because in most cases it was developed by someone in its ranks, or because its high command decided it that way for their own reasons.

My only suggestion is that there shouldn’t be any MODS, other than an amateur tinkering with its original design for his own learning purposes(This is not an insult to Modders, they are by definition amateurs and tinkerers, not professionals), I don’t see any other reason than maybe to have bragging rights in front of his peers in a chat room or forum In order to gain notoriety from an unsuspecting group of bystanders who get duped into believing that that person has the “Right Stuff� to best the original developer, sort of like saying “In your Face�, I’ll prove it to you, how many online gaming groups use the MODS?

A very small fraction of players, why? Because of their unreliability and because most players are extremely weary (As am I) of changes made by someone who claims to have the know how to do it, yet his/her credentials wouldn’t stand a simple audit by an educated source. Oh there have been improvements designed for online gaming that in no way affect the game’s parameter behavior, such as the Seawolves Enigma communication program, or their tweaking of the crew complement and sub improvements, but they never ever designed or promoted a MOD, they are not to be trusted.

In all honesty, in my time of playing online games, which dates back to its beginnings in 1989, I’ve only seen one MOD (of the games I played) that was widely accepted, and that was the NATO MOD for Rainbow Six, I heard of MODS for Falcon 4.0, Mechwarrior and many others, but they never went past the testing by a very tiny number of players, and usually they were acquaintances of whomever had designed the MOD, who subsequently engaged in interminable discussions as to its applicability and usefulness, until they tired of it when its audience failed to grow and eventually moved on to the next game that came out, and the MOD, inevitably faded into obscurity from whence it came.

To put this in terms you can understand, the success of an application be it a MOD or any program for that matter, is its acceptance and implementation by the general public, other than that, they are just experiments, that plausible they maybe for its designers interest and good will to improve on a game, they generate false expectations to a small audience which sooner rather than later, realize that it will go no further than a futile testing which in the end yielded nothing, excuse me, it killed time which would have been better spent playing the game as their writers intended it to be played.

In conclusion, MODS are a poor excuse to supplant the original developer of a game because “my game was forgotten and further patching ceased� thence “I’m going to force the situation and find someone who can patch it for me, I’ll show them�

So there is my opinion, if you want to contribute to this debate, I urge you to please refrain from flaming anyone, the aim here is to gauge different reactions and opinions regarding this issue, its purpose is to maybe help define a standard of understanding among players so that it creates a plateau in which all players meet using the same version of a game (An unreachable Utopia of course), thus increasing the probabilities of you finding a fellow player to engage with in a game easier. Who knows, maybe someone with a 3 watt light bulb in his head will convene a council which would have as its defined job judge the appropriateness and therefore usefulness of a MOD and make recommendations to the general public To MOD Or Not To MOD…

So lets have it, take your best crack at me…

[Ramius]

Originally Posted by Hatch

of changes made by someone who claims to have the know how to do it, yet his/her credentials wouldn’t stand a simple audit by an educated source.

So lets have it, take your best crack at me…

So, let me get this right in my head - you don't like mods for games then ???? :rotfl:

Fair enough, thats upto you. Each to their own.



So I guess you are putting yourself forward as the "educated source" then. So test me





btw. You missed an option from the Poll - By those who know what they are doing and get the assistance of the games makers to do so

[Hobnail]

Geez dude, you'd be more happy with a console methinks.

[TLAM Strike]

Proud to be an “amateur tinkerer� despite my computer programming education.

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by Ramius

So, let me get this right in my head - you don't like mods for games then ???? :rotfl:

Fair enough, thats upto you. Each to their own.



So I guess you are putting yourself forward as the "educated source" then. So test me





btw. You missed an option from the Poll - By those who know what they are doing and get the assistance of the games makers to do so

Nope, I never claimed to be the trained professional to conduct such a test sir, but I was hoping for a more in depth intelligent discussion of the subject of this thread, including views as to why you do like the MODS or feel you are qualified to claim you can do a better job than the developers in reprograming the game, from what i can see, this is going to turn out to be a wash out as your only response is "just because".

My mistake.

[OKO]

why you do like the MODS or feel you are qualified to claim you can do a better job than the developers in reprograming the game

SCS just doesn't have enought time to change everything wrong on this simulation.
why is there so much wrong things ? because this simulation is probably the most complex ever made, and because sonalyst is NOT a company with lots of people to develop this simulation.

this doesn't mean stock DW is full of error, this mean, MODDERS could improve the stock DW by working on specific aspect where SC didn't had enought time to improve.

Why ? because they (modders) are enthousiast and informed about lots of things, things where sometimes SCS didn't want to lost time to correct some "errors".
And I agree with them, their job is to solve the main bugs, as they actually do, not to improve the realism factor.
just because this could be made by ... modders.

let SCS debug and modders modding.
And we are going to live in a great world.

As beta tester, I exactly know what I'm talking about.
I know also SCS enjoy the fact there is modders to IMPROVE this game.

So, in this story, you are the only one contesting this fact ...
I hope now you have more informations about it, you will better understand the situation.

it's a complementary works, not antagonistic work.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Hatch

My mistake.

Yes, it is your mistake, coming in as a newbie to a mod forum filled with dedicated modders to post your view that, to put it bluntly, Mods SUXORS (to use crap Internet vernacular). At the very least you could put it in the Users forum (the main one), since that's where the guys who don't with mods might reside. Anyone here plays with mods almost by definition and loves it.

My answers would be specific to DW mods:

The "division of labor", so to speak, is clearly delineated in DW. Modders can change the text files (doctrines and databases) as well as 3D models, but not the main program and its DLLs (at least they can't distribute it - no one can stop them from changing their own copy). That greatly reduces the chance of a trojan being transmitted. We can't even change enough in the program to change the Weapon Loadout interface's titles. I think you have little to worry about from trojans or even Easter Eggs from the DW mod community.

A modder is generally closer to the applied side of the game than the developer. This allows them to clearly see some things the developer doesn't. For instance, Sonalysts knew the cable for a dipping sonar is hundreds of meters long. Yet for some reason they decided it was better for gameplay to limit it to IIRC 400 feet (I'm not exactly a helo player; having toyed with everything but the helo...). That move did nothng good for either realism or gameplay - now it won't go through many deeper layers, to say the least. Let's just say a modder fixed that.

Same with the VLAD buoys - by increasing their depth, we have something that will go through the deeper layers, as well as providing a real reason to use both DIFARs and them.

There are also times when a quick check would identify mysterious errors. I was pretty stunned when I walked into the DB one day and realized that almost every Russian SSM, even the Sunburns and Switchblades used doctrines made for nonseaskimmers, which made the missiles fly way too high = vulnerable to shootdowns. Let's just say I had to go change that. If this is some kind of realism error, it should be changed, no? If this is some kind of gameplay, well, I'm not sure how this is going to improve gameplay, but gamers can better decide whether they like "gameplay" or realism.

Some people actually apparently saw real Akulas and/or their diagrams and came to the conclusion that the stock 3D model doesn't come close to it. Are you telling me their eyes are fooling them?

Sure, for all of this maybe if we beg Sonalysts it may eventually all get changed. But why? They can, as OKO noted, use that time developing the main program - improved sonar models or actually detecting masts that stuck above water, or improved handling of objects travelling at >55 knots, or new interfaces, better ballast controls - all things we CAN'T control. Few of us can do that stuff in the first place and it is now blatantly clear no one can change that stuff legally. Might as well do the stuff we can ourselves and let SCS do the stuff we can't.

There are also other considerations in MP than reliability or even the quality of package.

Suppose we have a mod package that everyone in the know agrees is decisively superior in all respects to the original. Even then, many people won't mod. There will always be the Suspicious, like you. And there will be even more Ignorants who never go to a BBS to find out what mods are available.

To put it on a reduced scale, I use LW's mod and go on to make a few refinements here and there. But when I go MP, I'd have to revert to LW's mod, or even the Stock.

The MP community faces the same dilemma. Everyone has the stock version stashed away somewhere. Not everybody has the modded version. This is where what one may call a quality vs quantity dilemma comes in. Does a community want to force its players to mod for a superior gaming experience?

Or do they just want more, on the theory that more players = more good players and good players are more important than realism improvements (after all, DW is a long way up in realism from 688 Fast-Attack, but many people played that too).

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Yes, it is your mistake, coming in as a newbie to a mod forum filled with dedicated modders to post your view that, to put it bluntly, Mods SUXORS (to use crap Internet vernacular). At the very least you could put it in the Users forum (the main one), since that's where the guys who don't with mods might reside. Anyone here plays with mods almost by definition and loves it.

My answers would be specific to DW mods:

The "division of labor", so to speak, is clearly delineated in DW. Modders can change the text files (doctrines and databases) as well as 3D models, but not the main program and its DLLs (at least they can't distribute it - no one can stop them from changing their own copy). That greatly reduces the chance of a trojan being transmitted. We can't even change enough in the program to change the Weapon Loadout interface's titles. I think you have little to worry about from trojans or even Easter Eggs from the DW mod community.

A modder is generally closer to the applied side of the game than the developer. This allows them to clearly see some things the developer doesn't. For instance, Sonalysts knew the cable for a dipping sonar is hundreds of meters long. Yet for some reason they decided it was better for gameplay to limit it to IIRC 400 feet (I'm not exactly a helo player; having toyed with everything but the helo...). That move did nothng good for either realism or gameplay - now it won't go through many deeper layers, to say the least. Let's just say a modder fixed that.

Same with the VLAD buoys - by increasing their depth, we have something that will go through the deeper layers, as well as providing a real reason to use both DIFARs and them.

There are also times when a quick check would identify mysterious errors. I was pretty stunned when I walked into the DB one day and realized that almost every Russian SSM, even the Sunburns and Switchblades used doctrines made for nonseaskimmers, which made the missiles fly way too high = vulnerable to shootdowns. Let's just say I had to go change that. If this is some kind of realism error, it should be changed, no? If this is some kind of gameplay, well, I'm not sure how this is going to improve gameplay, but gamers can better decide whether they like "gameplay" or realism.

Some people actually apparently saw real Akulas and/or their diagrams and came to the conclusion that the stock 3D model doesn't come close to it. Are you telling me their eyes are fooling them?

Sure, for all of this maybe if we beg Sonalysts it may eventually all get changed. But why? They can, as OKO noted, use that time developing the main program - improved sonar models or actually detecting masts that stuck above water, or improved handling of objects travelling at >55 knots, or new interfaces, better ballast controls - all things we CAN'T control. Few of us can do that stuff in the first place and it is now blatantly clear no one can change that stuff legally. Might as well do the stuff we can ourselves and let SCS do the stuff we can't.

There are also other considerations in MP than reliability or even the quality of package.

Suppose we have a mod package that everyone in the know agrees is decisively superior in all respects to the original. Even then, many people won't mod. There will always be the Suspicious, like you. And there will be even more Ignorants who never go to a BBS to find out what mods are available.

To put it on a reduced scale, I use LW's mod and go on to make a few refinements here and there. But when I go MP, I'd have to revert to LW's mod, or even the Stock.

The MP community faces the same dilemma. Everyone has the stock version stashed away somewhere. Not everybody has the modded version. This is where what one may call a quality vs quantity dilemma comes in. Does a community want to force its players to mod for a superior gaming experience?

Or do they just want more, on the theory that more players = more good players and good players are more important than realism improvements (after all, DW is a long way up in realism from 688 Fast-Attack, but many people played that too).

Mr. Kazuaki, thank you for that eloquent description of what is you do to the game. Yet it served to validate one of my points, and that is one of acceptance by the general public, as you patently put it, you have to revert to the stock game for MP playing, there is no unison in version usage, MOD or not MOD, further, you also validated one other concept I put forward, and that was the tinkering with the program for your own personal use, the only consensus as you put it was the patched developer stock game, which clearly outlines the plateau where all gamers can meet in a leveled arena of playing. Which is one of the points I described on my initial assessment?

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence.

A picture is emerging here my friend, and that is; if the tweaks you have made to the realism model are as good as you describe, certainly as obvious as you describe, and if there is a consensus of players regarding those changes, the problem here is one of distribution and acceptance by the general public, what you have here is a situation of non endorsement by the manufacturer to convince skeptics such as me, and thousands of others, that the changes do warrant their implementation to further better gaming, I for one would be delighted to try another patch or fix, provided the developer avails itself to approve that work.

I’m assuming that Sonalysts is unwilling to underwrite your work for whatever reason, be it secret (Which I think its ridiculous) to one of man hours spent reviewing your work, and do you know why they do not avail themselves to underwrite any MOD? It isn’t because it’s a top secret changes you made to a game, its one of credibility and corporate image, to put it simply, this is what people would say “Oh SCS, them guys are selling a buggy, unfinished game, and a bunch of hackers, amateurs, tinkerers and Modders had to finish it for them with their approval, and those guys didn’t get a dime for finishing that product, so SCS made out like a bandit, yet we are paying full retail price� all of this yields a dilemma of credibility for all you hard working modders, and thus here we are, without a general agreement on which version of the game to use, except of course, those of us who use the original developer patched versions, you are facing not having the real recognition and endorsement for the work you have done.

So you see, as good as your work maybe (I can’t say anything either way having never tried a MOD) you don’t have the acceptance of the general public, and my friend that spells a doomed product, if you did the changes for yourself great, you can go look in the mirror and blow kisses at yourself and say you are a happening guy, if it isn’t adopted by the general public (And I mean a lot of gamers not just your friends) as I described it, it will fade into obscurity in the long run.

[MaHuJa]

As for the poll, the two options are complementary with DW.

There are some issues (USNI reference and associated copyrights, for example) that would prevent SCS from adopting the lwami mod databases and doctrines into the next 'official' patch (which would prove our point very well) but had those issues been solved I wouldn't be surprised if they actually made such a move - assuming that LW&AMI are willing to give their work to scs in that fashion, which I don't believe to be far-fetched.

Yes, it is your mistake, coming in as a newbie to a mod forum filled with dedicated modders to post your view that, to put it bluntly, Mods SUXORS (to use crap Internet vernacular). At the very least you could put it in the Users forum (the main one), since that's where the guys who don't with mods might reside. Anyone here plays with mods almost by definition and loves it.

Then again, maybe he was looking for just the sort of input he's getting here.

Or for that sake, he could have been trolling - I don't jump to conclusions, but that is a possibility - though perhaps the scs board thread he referenced would more or less prove otherwise.

The "division of labor", so to speak, is clearly delineated in DW. Modders can change the text files (doctrines and databases) as well as 3D models, but not the main program and its DLLs (at least they can't distribute it - no one can stop them from changing their own copy). That greatly reduces the chance of a trojan being transmitted. We can't even change enough in the program to change the Weapon Loadout interface's titles. I think you have little to worry about from trojans or even Easter Eggs from the DW mod community.

It *might* be possible (very unlikely, I think, and even then it would take a heck of a lot ofeffort) to create a bad database that causes code execution. The "packaging" may include some bad code, in self-extractor/autoinstaller or mod-switcher. Though if you're worried, just use tiny firewall.

As for easter eggs - well, it's possible to make ships have a big greenpeace logo (etc etc etc etc) on their sides, and if you consider the russian/italian(?) panels, the interfaces too.

That said, it's genereally few people in the community who will do any of it - at least in the "established" SC/DW community. And I believe anyone trying any of it would be detected fairly quickly.

[XabbaRus]

If he is trolling then this thread will be locked.

If it stays I nice discussion I'll leave it open.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Hatch

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence.

The "Weak Argument" is in fact the truth. In three patches SCS has done almost nothing to increase detection ranges to known realistic levels. SA is limited to what they can put in to the sim due to their Government contracts and secrecy (They are a military contractor staffed by many ex-military people). They KNOW stuff is unrealistic (they have admitted it), they know the true speed of a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 Towed Array, but they can’t change it in DW since putting that information out there could endanger the lives of American service men in the future. Us modders on the other hand can evaluate based on unclassified data that SCS hasn’t paid to use and 1st hand accounts the true speed or a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 TA and input that in to the sim. If you don’t believe me ask a Russian Submariner if they have a torpedo called the “53cm� or ask a P-3 pilot if his Maverick missile has a 40-mile range and can hit a submarine a 1000 fleet underwater or a SONAR operator if a supertanker just pops up on sonar 20 miles away.

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

If he is trolling then this thread will be locked.

If it stays I nice discussion I'll leave it open.

Now it all fits, that's why you wanted me to bring this discussion here, nevertheless, I beleive so far I've received some of the answers I was looking for, and I have made an analysis for you Modders to review and adjust your thinking if you desire to improve your credibility and exposure to the general public, on the other hand, if you are happy with your status quo ante nothing else, then I suggest you lock or even remove the thread, I will take my discussion elsewhere.

Thank you.

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The "Weak Argument" is in fact the truth. In three patches SCS has done almost nothing to increase detection ranges to known realistic levels. SA is limited to what they can put in to the sim due to their Government contracts and secrecy (They are a military contractor staffed by many ex-military people). They KNOW stuff is unrealistic (they have admitted it), they know the true speed of a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 Towed Array, but they can’t change it in DW since putting that information out there could endanger the lives of American service men in the future. Us modders on the other hand can evaluate based on unclassified data that SCS hasn’t paid to use and 1st hand accounts the true speed or a Seawolf Class submarine or the true sensor range of a TB-16 TA and input that in to the sim. If you don’t believe me ask a Russian Submariner if they have a torpedo called the “53cm� or ask a P-3 pilot if his Maverick missile has a 40-mile range and can hit a submarine a 1000 fleet underwater or a SONAR operator if a supertanker just pops up on sonar 20 miles away.

I understand the need to preserve some of that data of realism undisclosed, submarining has by nature been "The silent service" but to counter you point, even though the realism model published by SCS in the stock isn't real life, I beleive a compromise should have been reached by the designers in the fashion that although those values aren't real, they could at least be made into a proposition that satisfied the players gaming experience, not having been made it so extremely bad that warranted a Modder to seemingly step into the fray and stand on the bow and say "I bested their work, I've brought the simulation to a level of reality that the manufacturer couldn't" That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

[MaHuJa]

Originally Posted by Hatch

as you patently put it, you have to revert to the stock game for MP playing, there is no unison in version usage, MOD or not MOD,

I never play DW unmodded nowadays. And I'll tell you this - when I've been playing, in "open" places where mod/not mod has not been predecided by other people, modded has been far preferred.

further, you also validated one other concept I put forward, and that was the tinkering with the program for your own personal use, the only consensus as you put it was the patched developer stock game, which clearly outlines the plateau where all gamers can meet in a leveled arena of playing. Which is one of the points I described on my initial assessment?

You seem to be deliberately misreading him.

Essentially, if a player is gonna be able to play "everyone" then the simple count of "who has stock installed" and "who has mod installed" goes in favor of the former - BECAUSE NEARLY ALL OF THE LATTER ALSO IS IN THE FORMER GROUP.

(I'm one of the few people only in the latter group.)

As for the suggestion of SCS not having enough time to tweak the realism models, I think it’s a weak argument; it certainly does make a convenient one to validate the Modders existence.

One could say they have the time, but that would slow down the work on the more important issues that only they can fix.

what you have here is a situation of non endorsement by the manufacturer to convince skeptics such as me, and thousands of others, that the changes do warrant their implementation to further better gaming, I for one would be delighted to try another patch or fix, provided the developer avails itself to approve that work.

I’m assuming that Sonalysts is unwilling to underwrite your work for whatever reason, be it secret (Which I think its ridiculous) to one of man hours spent reviewing your work, and do you know why they do not avail themselves to underwrite any MOD?

I can think of a number of reasons. For one, they seem to be very short on manpower nowadays, and secondly, perhaps related to being in the government defense contractor business, they may have some overly paranoid lawyers having too much say in it to allow such a thing. I don't know, but that's certainly a possibility.

It isn’t because it’s a top secret changes you made to a game, its one of credibility and corporate image, to put it simply, this is what people would say “Oh SCS, them guys are selling a buggy, unfinished game, and a bunch of hackers, amateurs, tinkerers and Modders had to finish it for them with their approval, and those guys didn’t get a dime for finishing that product, so SCS made out like a bandit, yet we are paying full retail price�

Umm... I think you're WAY off track on this.

I believe (someone know if this is actually the case?) counterstrike started out as a *mod* for halflife... and did anybody say that about valve? At least not many - as the sales statistics for hl2 probably shows.

CS was a bottom-up remake, but that still doesn't change the fact that it pretty much took over for stock HL in multiplayer. And as for endorsement, all valve said at one time was something like "as long as they have to buy a copy of HL it's ok". ("ok" might have been "we don't care", but I went for the most endorsing version)


The sum total: Your argument is in shreds. Presuming a popular mod is more "reputation-damaging" in that way than one that "only a few people uses" as you put it.

(Note, nearly everything I know of HL/CS is secondhand.)

all of this yields a dilemma of credibility for all you hard working modders

Please elaborate...

you are facing not having the real recognition and endorsement for the work you have done.

Ummm... how much do you think they should expect?

Most good software - at least open software - starts with the developer scratching a personal itch. This is no different from modders.

Then others find it useful, start using it, and provide feedback on what else can be done. This is also no different from modders.

As for the "recognition and endorsement" - you're speaking as if you're assuming everyone goes into the "mod business" hoping and expecting (and there makes it somewhat an oxymoron, doesn't it?) to be recognized like the CS people did - hl2 multiplayer mode *is* CS:S by what I hear.

That's just an accidental result.

>...you don’t have the acceptance of the general public,

We don't know that. My impression is that nearly everyone on the subsim forum uses it, and of those nearly everyone can switch back for a mp session with someone who doesn't have it yet - or won't play with it. How many more?

Since installing a mod involves an extra set of actions, publicity is implicit (everyone who knows the mod knows the game), the 'stock' has an advantage over a mod, always.


>and my friend that spells a doomed product,

Generally speaking, only if "the general public" is the target audience you depend on.

>if you did the changes for yourself great, you can go look in the mirror and blow kisses at yourself

...could certainly qualify as incendiary...

if it isn’t adopted by the general public (And I mean a lot of gamers not just your friends) as I described it, it will fade into obscurity in the long run.

I hardly consider myself a close friend or even associate of them. In "market" terms I'm a happy 'customer' of the modders.

(Everything fades into obscurity in the long run. Make the run long enough and perhaps the same can be said of humanity.)

Most groups playing online seems to choose to play with the stock game instead of modded. I believe the entire reasoning comes down to small things like tech support - in endorsing it and requiring it, they may have to help people install it properly, the manhours required for which may be more than they feel like spending. Then again, I suggest we ask them directly for their reasons.

[MaHuJa]

Originally Posted by Hatch

That my friend is arrogancy at its most blatant display.

I don't think arrogancy enters it at all.

Just look at how the LW/AMI expects to be superceded by DWX, whenever that comes.

I don't know how it happened that some of the issues described was in the release, but it was. You can (figuratively at least, some people will look at you crosseyed otherwise...) spit on the game for that - but remember that it is the unmodded version you claim preference to you spit on.

It was within our capabilities to change much of it, so why not?



Honestly, I don't think you have that much of a case. In the general case, as well as the DW one.

Mods can recreate a game perhaps as much as an expension can. Occasionally more. Though all I can really do about it is say "that's your loss".

We don't actually know how many have the mod and how many does not - you're making assumptions here. You may come from an "environment" where few has it, I'm from an "environment" where many has.


Anyway, here's what I would wish for you to do:
1) Get the lwami mod, try it. Establish if you think it fixes anything, i.e. if it's better than the stock version. Independently of who else has it.
2) Anytime you talk to a DW player, ask if he has the lwami mod.
3) If they don't, ask why. If they do, ask why.
4) Report back the results. Make sure to include the environment you've been asking in, for completeness. If most are seawolves, that will give a different result from mostly active-subsim-forum-posters.

I'd guess, that the most common reasons for not having it would be
-Haven't heard of it (common answer for most any mod, most any game)
-Those I play with don't use it (notice the self-reinforcing part of this)
-Rules in a virtual fleet don't allow it for matches, and I don't want to spend time with different sonar-etc-etc parameters than I'll use in a match
(which begs the question why are the rules like that)

---
As for the trolling possibility, I only mentioned that as a possibility - most cases follow certain patterns and some patterns did match. As for trolling or not, I believe the intention to be a cruicial part.

I certainly don't have conclusive evidence, nor do I find particularly much reason to believe that was his intention. My current assumption is that it's accidental that he matched some trolling patterns.

I do believe, however, that he is quite stubborn on a weak case.