Read by Council Hinder design theft

[Dr. Whammy]

I want him able to specifically edit my ships, not just spawn in new ones, but to change shared vessels and save them without going through me. Admittedly its not that much of a problem, but this would still be nice for me.

Under the proposed ideas, the answer to your predicament may be simpler than you think.

1) You build/spawn a protected copy of the ship you want modified.
2) Your friend modifies the ship.
3) YOU save the modified blueprint then give him a protected copy of it if you like.

Your thoughts sir?

 

[Erth Paradine]

I've split an earlier message in half, this is the 2nd-half of that message.

I have mixed-feelings about the following, I don't see a lot of value in implementing blueprint-level restrictions, and there does not appear to be a great deal of support for such restrictions, but given that the topic has been broached earlier, let's keep brainstorming with the earlier idea for a moment:

To address a reasonable concern raised by some whom want to facilitate downloadable, distributable, copies of their design, while still imposing some control over how those designs are used on other servers, in SP, etc...

• Provide a means of, at the time when "save blueprint to local" is executed, for players to choose which of the three attributes are stored in the downloadable blueprint.
• Display an attribute on each CC page, which clearly communicates the permission level for a relevant blueprint:
  • Original author wishes to share without restriction.
  • Original author wants to provide a framework from which you could build a better, faster, stronger, deadlier ship. Here's a design that you can save changes to!
  • Original author wants to share their pristine artwork, and asks that you respect their request to not mutilate its pristine beauty (well...except for cannonball holes...).

Further, earlier in this thread we touched upon the idea of the game engine cryptographically signing blueprints, as a means of identifying the original builder, and further, of significantly easing the process around detecting modified blueprints. So while we keep in mind that this particular addition adds some programing and procedural complexity, it may not see the light of day anytime soon....let's wrap the idea in now:

• Utilize one of many optional PGP/GPG libraries for Java.
• At the time a player selects "save blueprint to local" the resulting packaged file is PGP-signed.
• At the time a player loads a saved blueprint from local, the package's PGP signature is validated, to ensure that the blueprint is pristine, as originally downloaded.
• As for accommodating tools such as SMEdit: that's where the value of a PGP keyserver comes in.
  • We ask that developers of popular tools, such as Bobby Bighoof , to integrate supporting routines that would respect a player's original wishes.
  • Anyone can still download from CC, and if the original author permitted, may also copy/change the design.
  • Upon saving a new copy of the blueprint, it is then signed with a key assigned to the person making modifications.

 

[Madman198237]

Well, everyone, my point is that game mechanics should not require workarounds. Trust me, I've found and used some before.

 

[Erth Paradine]

Well, everyone, my point is that game mechanics should not require workarounds. Trust me, I've found and used some before.

I'm trying to reframe your request in the context of IRL experiences. Best I can come up with, is an example where your friend is a auto-body mechanic, and you've given him the keys to your car and your garage, to make repairs as his schedule permits. When he's done, you'd expect both sets of keys back, without anyone making duplicates. Exchange for his services, you have the local "Automobile Replicator" create a duplicate of your car for him to have (oh alright, so we don't have replicators yet...just go with it!).

Under that context, how does this suggestion not address your underlying goals:

Under the proposed ideas, the answer to your predicament may be simpler than you think.

1) You build/spawn a protected copy of the ship you want modified.
2) Your friend modifies the ship.
3) YOU save the modified blueprint then give him a protected copy of it if you like.

Your thoughts sir?

 

[Lukwan]

I want him able to specifically edit my ships, not just spawn in new ones, but to change shared vessels and save them without going through me.

Could this be accomplished by getting the copy-protection system to refer to a permission block to check for authorized 'mechanics'? The beauty of that option is that the permission-list is handled by an existing block and can be changed after-the-fact, on the fly & as many times as you want. Do permission blocks currently allow you type in a specific player? If not, that might be worth crow-barring in.

 

[Madman198237]

Lukwan, you have won yourself a Like.

Good thought. That is actually a very neat idea.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Could this be accomplished by getting the copy-protection system to refer to a permission block to check for authorized 'mechanics'? The beauty of that option is that the permission-list is handled by an existing block and can be changed after-the-fact, on the fly & as many times as you want. Do permission blocks currently allow you type in a specific player? If not, that might be worth crow-barring in.

Interesting...

What happens if the block is destroyed?

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

If someone infiltrates your faction to steal a ship, they would need to physically transport the ship somewhere for storage for it to be picked apart.

Having done that once I have to say it was incredibly exhilarating and fun.

 

[Lukwan]

What happens if the block is destroyed?

I suppose we would need a way to re-establish a link after replacing the destroyed permission-block. All I can think of at the moment is to use the marker-beam to tell the Copy-protection system which (permission) block to refer to.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Ok. You lost me at marker beam...

That's going to be too complicated for some players and not everyone will have access to a marker beam when spawning ships. There's a simpler solution than this. Just make 3 check boxes on the ship spawn/core spawn screen (the one where you enter the ships name and can set to your own faction). On this screen you select one of the following

1) allow blueprints/copying (absolutely no restrictions; even save it to local and post it on CC if you want.)

2) allow repairs only (anyone can repair but only the original designer can copy/save a blueprint of the design. This is good for ship manufacturers)

3) locked (anti-spy/theft/capture; (Your design is protected; only the original designer can repair or copy/save a blueprint of the design.)

Use the faction module to chance protection levels; It would be the same screen that you use to change the name of the ship.

This method will make changes to protection persist beyond the destruction of blocks. It cannot be bypassed by crooked/malicious players and it gets the job done in a way that is not complicated.


Also, regarding Madman198237's question about allowing friends to modify a ship. I'll repeat...

1) You build/spawn a locked/protected copy of the ship you want modified.
2) Your friend modifies the ship.
3) YOU save the modified blueprint then give him a protected copy of it if you like.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this. It seems to have been missed the last time I mentioned it.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

-snip-

The possibility of factions that soul purpose is to gain wealth by manufacturing ships for other factions would be awesome! I can see the huge ship yards now xD

in order for that to happen though we need to fix the economy : Fix NPC Shops = Fix The Economy
this thread needs some more discussion.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

The possibility of factions that soul purpose is to gain wealth by manufacturing ships for other factions would be awesome! I can see the huge ship yards now xD

I concur with this statement. It adds a new dimension to multi-player since you'll be able to fund the militaries of allies in a whole new way. There's also the rush experienced when you unlock a ship type from some elite builder that was previously unavailable.

in order for that to happen though we need to fix the economy : Fix NPC Shops = Fix The Economy
this thread needs some more discussion.

With trade routes being refined and a player-based ship manufacturing/sales system, we may see an end to the need for NPC economic involvement. Although, it may be possible to merge the two; player and NPC economies into one.

 

[<SCRIPTKITTY>]

With trade routes being refined and a player-based ship manufacturing/sales system, we may see an end to the need for NPC economic involvement. Although, it may be possible to merge the two; player and NPC economies into one.

Not to hijack your thread to much, but that's generally what this thread is about, a good read, not my thread actually but non the less an important observation.

 

[Madman198237]

Again, I'd like to see the mechanics I pointed out worked-into the game, instead of needing a workaround. To repeat: I understand and have used workarounds to allow two people to be a sort of sub-faction, but I would like to see no need for workarounds.

 

[Lukwan]

not everyone will have access to a marker beam when spawning ships.

That is more of an issue with markers-beams as meta-items. I see no reason for there to be meta-items (like marker-beam or flashlight) taking up valuable space on my toolbar. I would like to see the flashlight, the power-beam and the marker-beam folded into the basic vacc-suit.

Clean up astronaut toolbar
[doublepost=1475707126,1475705247][/doublepost]

Also, regarding Madman198237's question about allowing friends to modify a ship. I'll repeat...

1) You build/spawn a locked/protected copy of the ship you want modified.
2) Your friend modifies the ship.
3) YOU save the modified blueprint then give him a protected copy of it if you like.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this. It seems to have been missed the last time I mentioned it.

I believe Madman198237 stated that he wanted the system to allow him to be un-involved with his co-builders project. That is what gave me the idea to use a permission block to store the co-builder's user-name in. I can see this being useful because when I meet someone online and decide I trust them I would want to co-build with them unsupervised. IE: they can continue to work while I am offline.

This would be when I trust a faction-buddy but not the entire faction roster. It assists players who are not high-ranking in their factions but still want some build-protection.

 

[unelsson]

Copy-protection block might be okay. It would make designs less vulnerable of copying and modifications, but still could be worked around by destroying the block. Rpg-wise it would simulate efforts to patent/protect digital rights, but pirate modifications, cheap-ass shipyards etc. could still work around it, something I expect from fictional Starmade universe.

Core-checkboxes are fairly tight form of copy-protection and would require actual game hacking to breach, and although I personally don't feel like I want such ship designs as much, it's probably fairly easy to hack the designs anyway. I wouldn't prefer any sort of tight DRM-option.

Now, I see great potential in design and manufacturing industries in Starmade, even so that people would use ingame resources to ensure that certain designs arent manufactured by people who dont pay. It's a whole reason for faction war, but I feel like it's not something so solve by tight DRM, while some form of ingame copy-protections could actually increase ways on how to enjoy this game, and I do understand the disappointment some people get when they see their designs used against them. It can feel unfair, and that's something that most games should try to avoid.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

That is more of an issue with markers-beams as meta-items. I see no reason for there to be meta-items (like marker-beam or flashlight) taking up valuable space on my toolbar. I would like to see the flashlight, the power-beam and the marker-beam folded into the basic vacc-suit.

Clean up astronaut toolbar
[doublepost=1475707126,1475705247][/doublepost]

I believe Madman198237 stated that he wanted the system to allow him to be un-involved with his co-builders project. That is what gave me the idea to use a permission block to store the co-builder's user-name in. I can see this being useful because when I meet someone online and decide I trust them I would want to co-build with them unsupervised. IE: they can continue to work while I am offline.

This would be when I trust a faction-buddy but not the entire faction roster. It assists players who are not high-ranking in their factions but still want some build-protection.

Ok. Now I understand. How about another function added to the faction menu. "Grant player access". It acts like an exclusive guest list to allow you to give access to a specific player but not the rest of the faction/server.

The flow chart goes like this now.

1) You build/spawn a locked/protected copy of the ship you want modified.

2) In the faction menu; where you set/change protection, another button is added called "grant player access". Click on it and type in your friend's name.

3) Your friend modifies the ship.

4) Either you or your friend can alter or save the modified blueprint.

This would add the desired feature while removing the need for new blocks or meta items.

Thoughts gentlemen?

 

[Lukwan]

I feel like it's not something so solve by tight DRM, while some form of ingame copy-protections could actually increase ways on how to enjoy this game, and I do understand the disappointment some people get when they see their designs used against them. It can feel unfair, and that's something that most games should try to avoid

I would honored if someone blew a ship out from under me then hauled the wreckage home, tried to reverse engineer my tech then made a Frankenstein-copy of it. What better praise could there be?

That is a lot different than pressing a 'copy' button on my design.

 

[Erth Paradine]

My concern w/ permission blocks, is that we're revisiting what are essentially frequently broken faction block mechanics, hence the original suggestion for an attribute assigned at the time of entity spawn. That, and to truly be effective, a permissions block would need to be indestructible, or we've completely negated what the OP seeks to accomplish.

 

[Lukwan]

My concern w/ permission blocks, is that we're revisiting what are essentially frequently broken faction block mechanics, hence the original suggestion for an attribute assigned at the time of entity spawn. That, and to truly be effective, a permissions block would need to be indestructible, or we've completely negated what the OP seeks to accomplish.

These same drawbacks occurred to me as well. Just trying to brain-storm solutions that might work for all these added suggestions.

BTW, good job moderating this thread Erth Paradine. You have done an admirable job trying to weave many different ideas into your OP.