No kidding the power system is broke just realized why!

[GRHayes]

(1+2) Maybe they expected it to only be used between multiple separately target-able ships.

(3) Maybe they expected it to lose 10% power on that way and didn't thought about increasing it when changing the soft-cap on power-regen.

(5) Maybe you are a higher-dimensional being, exploiting parallel instances of planes in space which shine doesn't know lol.
At least we can be happy that all logically-wrong systems create friction real life does not have.


This is not clear, can you please put an example or additional sentence to it to provide context?​

(1+2) so why did they build in the ability to target the parent ship?
(3) they could have just built it into only transfer 90% they didn't

(4) As you know with rail systems your ship can fit in any area it doesn't collide with another object.
Collision boxes are usually just boxes not the shape of the object. They went to the point of making the collision box fit the actual object so you could take two wedges and fit them together and same for the other blocks. Which is why you can have odd shaped objects make doors and stuff not just strait up and down blocks.

(5) Not a chance I simply used math to get a better result and make use of what they created. They are the ones that wrote the rules and formulas. I just used them to the extent I could.

It reminds me of 1987 NASCAR and restrictor plates changes and how pissed NASCAR got 6 weeks later when cars where back up to speed. People simply found other changes and stuff they could improve in the cars to get that lost speed back.

 

[NeonSturm]

(1+2) so why did they build in the ability to target the parent ship?
(3) they could have just built it into only transfer 90% they didn't

They did, but indirectly via block-count and weight/build/supply-cost of support-modules.

​

(4) As you know with rail systems your ship can fit in any area it doesn't collide with another object.
Collision boxes are usually just boxes not the shape of the object. They went to the point of making the collision box fit the actual object so you could take two wedges and fit them together and same for the other blocks. Which is why you can have odd shaped objects make doors and stuff not just strait up and down blocks.

So you already provided the answer yourself:

They implemented it for doors, but forgot about shield-exploits.
​

(5) Not a chance I simply used math to get a better result and make use of what they created. They are the ones that wrote the rules and formulas. I just used them to the extent I could.
It reminds me of 1987 NASCAR and restrictor plates changes and how pissed NASCAR got 6 weeks later when cars where back up to speed. People simply found other changes and stuff they could improve in the cars to get that lost speed back.

Agree.

Non-consent ©opy-Restrictions, (U)se-Restrictions, $hare-Restrictions, Modify-restrictions, …

They are all evil and that's why peoples unconsciously know they need to work around it.
(Maybe you want to look at my last post last page, I added an essay just before you answered.​

 

[GRHayes]

(1+2) worked but where supposed to transfer at 80% however it was broken then and I discovered it was missing a tick count. Instead of fixing it they went the other way with it and made it worse.

(3) is a different system of transfer from 1 and 2. It is the transfer system when ship used to dock to you they could collect power from a station or other ships and for turrets.
It never had a power transfer cap of any kind. I got over 160Million e with no loss.
It was measured every tick. They could have simply gone transfer rate * 0.9

(4) This was more about double and quad armor and shield distribution also ties into it. Shield distribution doesn't require blocks be combined just every other block be attached to a different shield.
They implemented it so ships, turrets and so on could also fit in more defined areas. That way you could make stuff like launch tubes elevators and so on that are not squares.
Before I came up with this they had someone else building multiple docked blocks into one another. They didn't consider that also.

You realize that last reply is supporting the more negative aspect that they really didn't consider all these issues.

Ok, lets assume everyone is right and the worst case scenario is true they really did make the same basic mistake 5 times in a row (that being building something and expecting people to not use it) then you still have the added issue of they are a one trick pony when it comes to solving problems also because they simply rely on trying to stop or limit what is being done.

What is worse is I told them this would happen if they tried to fix the upstream power system and prevent what I was doing because the number of ways it could be done was so limited. They still did it anyway. My words to them on that is "TOLD YOU SO"!

Some times the best way to support people is to tell them they are wrong or they made a mistake.

As for your essay. Well consider I do tutorials for free and help people with code and stuff when I can kind of should say the way I go in regard to that. Frankly, if I could legally release all the code created not getting in one for of trouble or another I would. Even the current game I am building and plan to release will be released with code primarily I see it as a chance for people to learn some code and they can go on to make changes and create something new with it if they like.

 

[NeonSturm]

Perhaps they just (ab)use us for doing all the error-detection stuff.
It's a waste of man-power to let peoples do it which do not know a thing about the code.

And it's a waste to build on top of a broken system.
As soon as I see a project which works perfectly ground-up, is free and makes my life actually easier than harder, I join there.
But now I focus on AI rather than bothering with graphics hardware and network-code or feature-complete implementations.​

 

[arouq]

Thus StarMade is mostly a service, not a product.
And via ©opy-Restriction, Schema claims sole monopoly over this service and Shine helps Schema with it.
If we make suggestions, we legally keep copy-restriction-right but allow SM to use what we post.

Now we have to make a choice:

1. Do we want to use SM-service to deliver truth and accept that SM ©opy-Restricts some truth itself uncovers.
2. Do we sabotage SM by assisting a free community-project instead.
   • And take the risk of wasting effort.
   • And take the risk of it being stolen by copy-restriction-trolls.

As you see, it's not free to play at all as long as Shine aligns with "uncertainty of security" through ©Restriction.
What I really want from StarMade:

1. To promote truth.
2. To ask for a single fee before providing truth
   • This can be done through bitcoin directly (or other micro-transactions)
   • credits users can earn for submissions
     (for assisting starmadedock's content-collection with qualitative content)
   • or via advertising companies
     • if users buy something and use SMDs cookie/token, Shine would get money.
     • The advertiser could offer 5% cost reduction if such a token is used.
     • This wouldn't reward ad-flooding, but useful ads such as real-life-electronic components in logic forums or pizza-services in implement-food suggestion

90% of the time, you make no sense at all. I understand English isn't your first language, but just know, most people here do not know what you are talking about most of the time, hence, your posts are usually ignored.

With that out of the way, StarMade is a product, just like every single other video game out there. Game companies (particularly indies) don't sacrifice years of their own time and money to make their game, to receive nothing. StarMade is already offered for a single fee, you pay money to purchase the product and receive the right to full access at beta and release. Newsflash, this is how the world works, you don't get to take something for free because you think you're special. Why don't you go off and start offering your hard work for free and see if you can feed a family. No? I thought not.

There are other models, sure. Subscription based and free to play, both of which cost the user more in the long run. The free to play model would likely not work for StarMade, they wouldn't be able to generate enough revenue to continue development, or to justify any further business.

Regardless of whether we disagree on game mechanics and development, whether you think StarMade is a good game or not, this sort of attitude is disgusting. You are not entitled to a product simply because you've posted barely understandable posts on a community forum. You've used this product, I assume since you've been here so long, you've played countless hours. And yet, you don't think Schine needs money to keep afloat? Thank god most people aren't like you, we wouldn't have a gaming industry.

You know what, I haven't purchased the game yet. I've seen you make the suggestion that a game company doesn't deserve money for its work a few times now, working in the industry myself, I'm repulsed. We have families support too, if you don't like that, leave. So you know what, I'm going to go purchase 3 copies right now, one for me, one to make up for your cheap ass and an additional one because I fucking love this game.

 

[NeonSturm]

StarMade is already offered for a single fee, you pay money to purchase the product and receive the right to full access at beta and release.

WRONG

Do you even read my things before you reply?
Because then you would know that SM isn't a single fee.
1 user, 1 fee; 100 users, 100 fees.

And you don't purchase a product, you purchase "the service to use the product legally" which can be cancelled when you violate AGBs without in a way that going to curt is more costly than ignoring that offence against you.
Also, I have no full-access when the game breaks with an update for my hardware or if I lose my steam-account, etc, etc.

Do old releases get released in source when enough peoples paid?
Do you know if shine gets 10% paid or 500% paid for their investment? I think 200% is tolerable considering 100% is risk and 100% is work.
​

With that out of the way, StarMade is a product, just like every single other video game out there. Game companies (particularly indies) don't sacrifice years of their own time and money to make their game, to receive nothing.

Exactly that is why I added examples of how the game could get paid without paying for a game license.
Contracts with ad-companies, subscription-fees to the test-server (the test-server is a service not a product, thus subscription fees are ok)

But I don't want to support or use pay-pal when they attack wikileaks for publishing classified material illegally (PayPal freezed wikileak accounts).
​

90% of the time, you make no sense at all.

95% of the time peoples attacking my posts for no good reason.

Why don't you go off and start offering your hard work for free and see if you can feed a family. No? I thought not.

I do not receive money for any work.
I publish a lot of posts and don't receive anything for it either.

It's no problem to get money (see my SIG_NATURE), as long as you don't monopolize products or communities.​

[doublepost=1491696072,1491695765][/doublepost]

Regardless of whether we disagree on game mechanics and development, whether you think StarMade is a good game or not, this sort of attitude is disgusting. You are not entitled to a product simply because you've posted barely understandable posts on a community forum. You've used this product, I assume since you've been here so long, you've played countless hours. And yet, you don't think Schine needs money to keep afloat? Thank god most people aren't like you, we wouldn't have a gaming industry.

I would pay if they would allow donations which value determinates when a public release happens (to non-regular donators).

But I don't support a product if I cannot play it because nobody fixes the rendering bug.
Perhaps someone would fix it, but nobody can try without violating the terms anyway.​

 

[arouq]

Exactly that is why I added examples of how the game could get paid without paying for a game license.
Contracts with ad-companies, subscription-fees to the test-server (the test-server is a service not a product, thus subscription fees are ok)

This is funny, you do realise this will never generate the same amount of revenue a purchase will right?

Do you even read my things before you reply?

Yea, I do, as I said, you rarely make sense. When you write garbage English, don't expect to receive complete understanding.

Because then you would know that SM isn't a single fee.
1 user, 1 fee
100 users, 100 fees.
And you don't purchase a product, you purchase "the service to use the product legally" which can be cancelled when you violate AGBs without in a way that going to curt is more costly than ignoring that offence against you.

We could make the debate of software as a service vs a product, it's been done countless times and the real answer is that it's mixed. As long as you have the files, you are able to use it. I've read the EULA, violating the terms does not revoke your right to keep the product.

But I don't want to support or use pay-pal when they attack wikileaks for publishing classified material illegally

Ok... you can use a credit/debit card payment, but I assume you also disapprove of that method as well. I'm sure there are ways to purchase perhaps a physical steam card, where you'll only be paying in cash. If you don't want to use Steam, all you'd have to do is link the account to the SM account system and only use it there.

I publish a lot of posts and don't receive anything for it either.

It's no problem to get money (see my SIG_NATURE), as long as you don't monopolize products or communities.

Those posts of yours are, I assume, not what you do for a living, we all do things for free. It's ridiculous to compare a companies product with your posts, no offense, but your posts are worth next to nothing, compared to a video game. People who make video games deserve to be paid for their work. People need money to live, one time purchasers are how most games do it. No other system would make any sense for StarMade.

 

[NeonSturm]

This is funny, you do realise this will never generate the same amount of revenue a purchase will right?

If StarMade would show what developers are earning (total for all proprietary products), you know how much SM is worth for them.

If you know how much SM is worth, you know what you are paying for.
If you see, you can do it for half that value, is it then really worth paying for it?

Perhaps you say I can do it for 50'000€ while the company already got 100'000€, but if I just buy a license, I only pay 15€.
BUT
This is evil. It is another form of "divide peoples and conquer their pockets".

Just because a community cannot organize themselves to create a product as a community, for the community does not make it good to demand more from all of them than they would have to pay if they work together.
​

Maybe

Maybe you think "who cares if it is evil?".
Maybe you want to imprison our free will to copy, modify, share, distribute products via ©opy-®estriction laws.

maybe you wanna use all unfree-peoples of an "Imperium-of-Lawyers" to prosecute ©opy®estriction-Breakers on your behalf and furthermore "use their own tax-payments for paying these assassins".

Spoiler: Do you know what that will make with our future?

You will NOT be the god-imperator on top of a pyramid-scheme ruling over mankind with a certainty of 1-to-3billion (if half of earth wants this position).
If you are unlucky, you become the god-imperator of evil just to be assassinated by a revolution or your prince.
Or you become a demon without friends (only partners which you cannot thrust).
Or you become a slave of that imperium you created.

What else can you do?

You can create small modules and sell them over a content-platform.
If that content-platform houses all community builds and all modules (community-content), then you have a good chance to reach new bakers and a very reliable income.

You say, you need to gain 500€ for this module and if peoples spend a total of 1000€ it is free-for-all including the source.

1. Peoples would first spend 500€ without getting anything back.
2. Peoples would spend the second 500€ but every-time someone spends money, it get distributed 50% to early-backers and 50% everyone who paid.
3. The money you gain as one-of-everyone, you would gain as "credits" which you can spend just like money - the only limit: you can't get paid out for legal reasons.

With that system, early-bakers get rewarded with credits and a chance to vote on the features they want to be available.


Developers can decide which modules to make.
Bakers could decide which modules to support.

Bakers could forum Baking-communities which only bake if they could bake a product fully and purchase it once-and-for-all.


If you fear other peoples copy your content-platform, you could legally limit "commercial use" only and only as long as your platform is maintained.​

 

[arouq]

If StarMade would show what developers are earning (total for all proprietary products), you know how much SM is worth for them.

If you know how much SM is worth, you know what you are paying for.
If you see, you can do it for half that value, is it then really worth paying for it?

Perhaps you say I can do it for 50'000€ while the company already got 100'000€, but if I just buy a license, I only pay 15€.
BUT
This is evil. It is another form of "divide peoples and conquer their pockets".

Profit

Welcome to the real world, companies are here to create a profit for the work they do. They are not here to make a loss or break even. If another company or individual thinks they can offer a superior product for the same price or cheaper, they will do that. If someone thinks they can make something faster, they will do that. This is how capitalism works, get used to it, because this is how the world runs.

How about you go and make your own version of StarMade and offer that for free? Good luck

Your argument here, like so many of them, really makes no sense at all. If you don't think StarMade is worth the price, just like anything else, don't buy it. It's not evil to generate a profit, that's exactly how the economy works. I'm sorry to say, but your idea of how things work isn't reality.

 

[NeonSturm]

How about you go and make your own version of StarMade and offer that for free? Good luck

If I don't have to fear legal consequences from Shine, I could try.

Maybe I could implement torus-planets, better logic and UI, but without network code and inferior light code
(a light switch which will switch on all blocks touching a room-floor or would touch air blocks above it)

Perhaps I provide a network-ability over stdout and stdin but do not write code how to connect client and server or handle network errors but instead provide 2-step actions (1. prepair&reportErrors, 2. agreement between server&client).

With that I can't build a PvP sandbox where seconds matter, but I could build something like a second-life client, card game or ship-editor and ship-showcase with such a code.
The most difficult thing for me would be to include efficient rendering and get all interfaces working because I have little experience with that.
​

Your argument here, like so many of them, really makes no sense at all. If you don't think StarMade is worth the price, just like anything else, don't buy it. It's not evil to generate a profit, that's exactly how the economy works. I'm sorry to say, but your idea of how things work isn't reality.

I don't call profit evil.

What I call evil is to back a 4-year work up on ©opy-®estriction law to prevent peoples expanding upon what they purchased.​

 

[arouq]

If I don't have to fear legal consequences from Shine, I could try.

As long as you're not naming it something very similar with the express purpose of confusing potential customers between the two products, there are no issues. Take a look at the host of games similar to StarMade. I don't think you'd be able to do it, but at least you would have learnt how difficult it is to make a game of this scale, and finally you'd learn to appreciate others work

What I call evil is to back a 4-year work up on ©opy-®estriction law to prevent peoples expanding upon what they purchased.

What I assume you mean is modding, which is permitted. So, if that's what you mean, you have no basis there.

The amusing thing is, you keep changing what you don't like whenever I point out that your statement is ridiculous.

 

[Criss]

I just want to chip in. You guys are progressing this thread fast so don't expect me to reply to everything but...

Power transfer beam - they never expected people to use it.
2) Shield transfer beam - they didn't expect anyone to make use of that either?

We never put in restrictions to prevent it from working on a docked entities targeting a mothership. We intended for it to be used in fleet combat, ie, support ships. Honestly it would have been better if we just waited until fleet mechanics were in so nobody would have had to deal with us ripping out docked power reactors.

blocks fitting together - they actually changed the collision boxes after the rail system so they could fit together - never expected to be used?

Where are we hindering players from doing this? If we changed the blocks so that they collided properly, why would we expect nobody to use that?

 

[GRHayes]

I just want to chip in. You guys are progressing this thread fast so don't expect me to reply to everything but...


We never put in restrictions to prevent it from working on a docked entities targeting a mothership. We intended for it to be used in fleet combat, ie, support ships. Honestly it would have been better if we just waited until fleet mechanics were in so nobody would have had to deal with us ripping out docked power reactors.


Where are we hindering players from doing this? If we changed the blocks so that they collided properly, why would we expect nobody to use that?

You are correct the dev team never put in anything preventing targeting the mothership. That was precisely my point if you didn't want us doing so then you could have easily prevented it.

I am referring to the issue of quad and double armor several devs called an exploit. In I think it was you yourself that mentioned needing to adjust the HP of slabs and wedges and so on to prevent it from being used. But I might be wrong could be one of the other devs.
Here is the demo ship I made to prove the point it could be done. ToyBox
Does that job the memory any?
Here is the thread I started on it showing everyone it was possible.
Quadruple armor without cheating

Anyway Criss my point was the development team had ample chance to see this coming and could have easily prevented any of these issues. Did they?NO. So the assumption on users part it is part of the design or a tool you gave us is simply what is to be expected.

There are countless other ways to limit stuff rather than the methods you are using and can be not just more effect but add to the game at the same point. But the team seems to have hit a rut and seems to be relying on simply stop it or power limit it...

 

[Comr4de]

Jesus dude you are fifty shades of mad

 

[NeonSturm]

As long as you're not naming it something very similar with the express purpose of confusing potential customers between the two products, there are no issues. Take a look at the host of games similar to StarMade. I don't think you'd be able to do it, but at least you would have learnt how difficult it is to make a game of this scale, and finally you'd learn to appreciate others work

So nobody has a problem with me programming an open-source & free StarMade in a JavaScript/C/Java-compatible Emulator with a community-submitted UI and block-textures if I name it "Lichbringer-GameEngine"?
What about the block-config's parameters or a re-textured Dave which I "reverse-engineered"?

What I assume you mean is modding, which is permitted. So, if that's what you mean, you have no basis there.

Modding is building on top of a broken system or make it incompatible with the default game?

I want a game free from source. As soon as you promote community-content above your own stuff you are a gate-keeper footpad toward this content if you not make the highway free for all or tell about a free alternative out there.

The amusing thing is, you keep changing what you don't like whenever I point out that your statement is ridiculous.

I never change my core opinion - but perhaps we miss each other's points.
Or perhaps you take my examples as isolated opinions, I dunno.​

[doublepost=1491703516,1491703329][/doublepost]

We never put in restrictions to prevent it from working on a docked entities targeting a mothership. We intended for it to be used in fleet combat, ie, support ships. Honestly it would have been better if we just waited until fleet mechanics were in so nobody would have had to deal with us ripping out docked power reactors.

®ipping out is limiting use, or not?

Shine were taking a feature away after we invested time to hype ourselves up on your whole-content, so Shine lost a bit of our trust in being able to use our master-pieces in the future.
​

I don't know how fleet has anything to do with that.

Fleet ships are different targets while reactors can be hidden inside until a ship falls.​

 

[Criss]

Anyway Criss my point was the development team had ample chance to see this coming and could have easily prevented any of these issues. Did they?NO. So the assumption on users part it is part of the design or a tool you gave us is simply what is to be expected.

This was long ago, when the team was a few people and the process wasn't streamlined. Not to blame Schema in particular. Had our now larger team been a part of this, we could have questioned the decision, tested it and made adjustments.

®ipping out is limiting use, or not?

Are you asking for docked reactors back? I don't see the point in arguing this. It was inevitable that that was going to change. Why would we risk keeping a performance impacting system that is unintuitive over creating a replacement that was hard mounted in the ship's design. It arguably removes depth. There is no way to be #1 without docked reactors on certain ship sizes when that mechanic was in place. Now we can focus on a new approach, where you have multiple options for how you want to succeed. These are things we are exploring alongside the power changes and will be put forward for the community to look at in the future.

 

[NeonSturm]

Are you asking for docked reactors back? I don't see the point in arguing this. It was inevitable that that was going to change. Why would we risk keeping a performance impacting system that is unintuitive over creating a replacement that was hard mounted in the ship's design. It arguably removes depth. There is no way to be #1 without docked reactors on certain ship sizes when that mechanic was in place. Now we can focus on a new approach, where you have multiple options for how you want to succeed. These are things we are exploring alongside the power changes and will be put forward for the community to look at in the future.

That's great.
But I think that fixing the docking-lag is important too.

With docked entities, you could have 7x7x127 power-sticks which enter your ship via rails (previously it was a hassle, I agree).
Whereas now you have to use the copy+paste feature which doesn't work at this size.
Even if it worked, removing that copied-box without anything around it is not very user-friendly.

If I have to choose between editing via adding modules and editing via copy+paste, I prefer modules.
Even if they have to be volumes like the old docking system (as long as you can use rails during edit).

The issue is that these things can undock, but nobody of Shine cares about free-floating blocks anywhere around the ship.
Just make it the-same already: Don't undock stuff even if the docker gets killed and handle it like part of the main entity when the rail has 0 speed.

Module dock-parts should work like cut+paste once docked, but for the player they should be as easy to handle as separate entities.​

 

[GRHayes]

This was long ago, when the team was a few people and the process wasn't streamlined. Not to blame Schema in particular. Had our now larger team been a part of this, we could have questioned the decision, tested it and made adjustments.


Are you asking for docked reactors back? I don't see the point in arguing this. It was inevitable that that was going to change. Why would we risk keeping a performance impacting system that is unintuitive over creating a replacement that was hard mounted in the ship's design. It arguably removes depth. There is no way to be #1 without docked reactors on certain ship sizes when that mechanic was in place. Now we can focus on a new approach, where you have multiple options for how you want to succeed. These are things we are exploring alongside the power changes and will be put forward for the community to look at in the future.

Actually not asking for anything back. The point is that for the most part the team has a one track mind or mentality of dealing with users doing what they didn't expect. That is to simply try and squash it or suck the life out of it.
If we go by what you just said those things called exploits aren't actually exploits they are oversights on the development team so why make out like the user is the bad person for simply making use of it. It is like you are trying to pass the blame off on us for your teams failings.

There was no sign saying this wasn't intended and I doubt to many of us read minds or have time to go back and check every single post to see what dev team member may or may not have said in the past. I thought simply the dev team was trying to make the game so that it wasn't just one power dump of blocks into the game to create something more powerful. Guess I gave you guys to much credit on that after all that is what you just essentially admitted to none of that was intended.

BTW seems like this game concept was heavily influenced by sword of the stars.

 

[DukeofRealms]

So nobody has a problem with me programming an open-source & free StarMade in a JavaScript/C/Java-compatible Emulator with a community-submitted UI and block-textures if I name it "Lichbringer-GameEngine"?
What about the block-config's parameters or a re-textured Dave which I "reverse-engineered"?

Nobody has an issue with you creating a game that tries to achieve the same thing as StarMade. No one has a problem with people creating new games. Where there is an issue, is, if you reverse engineered StarMade, slightly altered a few things and started selling/offering it off as your own. Go ahead and make a StarMade clone if you wish, just don't use our assets to do it. There are games very similar to StarMade out there right now, if I were to start a new game, personally I wouldn't choose to do a StarMade clone, there are already so many games in development that are trying to achieve the same thing or variations of it.

You could do it with any game, if you wanted to create a game like Elder Scrolls but open source, you could. As long as you didn't go using their assets to do so.

If you do use our assets, like any other company, we'd take issue with it.

I'll give you some examples:

Modding StarMade and offering that content for free: Good.
Creating your own game that tries to achieve the same things as StarMade, but does not use any of our assets: Good.
Reverse engineering StarMade, using all our hard work and owned materials, passing it off as another game/making public: Bad.
Advertising your own game as a StarMade 2 or open source StarMade: Bad.
[doublepost=1491709612,1491707734][/doublepost]

Anyway Criss my point was the development team had ample chance to see this coming and could have easily prevented any of these issues. Did they?NO. So the assumption on users part it is part of the design or a tool you gave us is simply what is to be expected.

The simple answer to all of your questions and points is that sometimes we remove/modify things that are intended, at times we remove/modify things that are unintended. Whether they are intended or not is irrelevant here and plays no part in the decision making process. We might mention that it was unintended and here are the reasons why we don't think it should stay, but we don't remove things simply because we didn't think it would happen.

The two big reasons we remove "features" (intended or not) are performance and balance.

Here's a simple process of how this happens.

Does it cause performance issues? Yes > Can it be fixed easily? No. > Is it integral to StarMade gameplay? > No. > Removed/Modified.

Does it negatively impact other or all aspects of gameplay? Yes > Can it be balanced to work with current and future plans > No. > Removed/Modified.

Intention/expectation takes no part here.

Anyway Criss my point was the development team had ample chance to see this coming and could have easily prevented any of these issues. Did they?NO. So the assumption on users part it is part of the design or a tool you gave us is simply what is to be expected.

There are countless other ways to limit stuff rather than the methods you are using and can be not just more effect but add to the game at the same point. But the team seems to have hit a rut and seems to be relying on simply stop it or power limit it...

Sure, we don't always catch things, that's why we're in open alpha, our players are always going to catch the things we miss. We take their reports, suggestions and feedback seriously. The truth is StarMade is not balanced, we're very experimental, we're willing to take risks with adding and removing systems. We've done a lot of it since the very beginning, and you're going to keep seeing that until beta.

The point is that for the most part the team has a one track mind or mentality of dealing with users doing what they didn't expect. That is to simply try and squash it or suck the life out of it.

Not true at all. When docked reactors were first found (a very, very long time ago), we liked the creativity and the design expansion there. It wasn't intended as far as I remember. Docked reactors stayed for a long time; we didn't address them specifically because they seemed to add onto our system. Unfortunately, they were not performance friendly, there are a few things we could (and will still do) to address some of that, but there was always going to be a performance impact. Secondly, they were an illusion of choice and smart design. At a certain size, they were a necessity, we don't want an inelegant, performance heavy "feature" to stay in the game, so they were removed. Their existence was one of the bigger complaints about the game we receieved.

So, initially we did think docked reactors were a good thing. After seeing them being used and evaluated their impact, it was found that they were not adding as much to the game as they were taking away.

If we go by what you just said those things called exploits aren't actually exploits they are oversights on the development team so why make out like the user is the bad person for simply making use of it. It is like you are trying to pass the blame off on us for your teams failings.

Oversights, exploits, bad features, all the same. You can call it whatever you want, what we're not saying is that the users are "bad" for making use of it. Some server owners might think that (fair enough), we're glad that people are showing what they can do with the game and what the consequences for that are. If you were to utilise performance killing "features" with the knowledge that they will negatively affect everyone's experience (like is true for so many of the things we remove/modify), then yes, that is quite bad.

 

[NeonSturm]

Creating your own game that tries to achieve the same things as StarMade, but does not use any of our assets: Good.

Thanks.

If someone would write a script to convert blueprints to my game and these blueprints would be fully functional, would that count as similar?

The biggest problem is if I use suggestions made in the SM-dock because I unconsciously remember them as being the perfect solution so that it guided me to rediscover the exact same solution, that Shine would sue me for using the Forum or CC (after all it's impossible to see whether such a script is written by me or someone else when use a public login and anonym account to publish it or send it via private male to someone I know would publish it or to myself so I could say I just received it from someone unknown).

I would rather invest 1 hour to think about different implementations (or how to guide someone else into creating the thing I intend as a mod by giving opportunity) than being in a legal battle with Shine because of log-files naming me as author.


And these grey-parts in brackets already show that it is impossible to police copy if you have creativity and resources.
These parts also show the insecurity which my uncertainty brings me – this uncertainty is mind-control through fear – these are the issues you have to address when using ©opy®estrictions ToS / licenses.

By not doing so, you create friction with community (and this post is an example of it).​

Sooner or later, I think that the game which allows community-content to be ported over to other games will have to win on the market (it attracts players).