Search results

So, essentially - all cores could carry with them a copy of their originally-spawned design. Your proposed various tiers of repair and copy permissions, would simply leverage that pre-stored information. That does sound slightly complicated, but then, not really any more complicated than...

Brilliant. So essentially an extension of an earlier idea to programmatically store the design somewhere within the ship: "update repair design" enables players to now deconstruct, and automatically save, an updated copy without releasing access of the protected to a non-spawning player. Support...

Yea, this is where I'm leaning with a response too. Comparison to an IRL capture would be similar...you'd have to tow the entity to a safe place, before getting the opportunity to reverse-engineer. Down with insta-copy! Yep, I tried to avoid that adage in the OP, as that really opens up a...

Does the spawner attribute change on overheat? If not, why should AllowCopy?

All hail the madman!

The idea, is that at the time of spawn, you choose which way the setting is toggled. In-effect, you're getting a choice: yes or no. This is not something configured inside a blueprint, but a choice you make at the moment you're spawning an entity from a filled blueprint or via shipyard design...

At this point you've lost me as a participant in your particular contributions on this thread; the problem with your reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme...

So...couldn't you just pretend that a protected entity is in-effect a 3D "screenshot". Nothing in the proposed OP, or throughout this thread, asserts to deny you a right build your own entity. The goal of the OP seeks to help encourage more artists to share their works, by giving those...

As I've stated in this thread, I think licensing is a neat idea, and if it encourages more players to share their works, then I fail to see the disadvantage. You do after-all have no right to someone else's creative work, unless that person chooses to share it with you. If something like...

Yea, the idea behind using a "design" instead of a "blueprint" is remove that blueprint dependency (and its related quirks), and instead utilize existing game features to store a design onboard the ship. It seems to me, that something like that would be relatively painless to implement. It would...

I like your idea, and am playing with possible ways to see it applied in-game. A mental exercise, if you will.

Yea, I think you're onto something here... I wonder if designs could be leveraged/sold, as something like a "repair permit", which would facilitate a shipyard to repair a specific relevant entity. Oh...now that could be nifty: sell a ship that includes a "repair permit"! It's something that...

This trips-up a lot of players: blueprints in item form are not really a blueprint. It's really nothing more than a basic metaitem which remains dependent upon the blueprint it was originally "purchased" from out of the catalog...change that catalog entry, or delete it, and relevant blueprints...

Oh, I think the licensing ideas are brilliant, but they're also a lot more complicated than a single true/false flag settable when an entity is spawned (and enforced at specific points in the game: shipyard design creation, and blueprint saving). I'm updating the OP with some info. Hopefully...

Alright, fair enough. Are you seeing a strong consensus on the additional ideas? Maybe I should at least give dibs to the licensing and DRM topics? Frankly - the OP presents a reasonably simple feature to implement. Licensing is, well...a really complicated animal from a coding perspective...

I don't feel anything has significantly changed from the original request JinM: The DRM topic has been quite clearly refuted, and was never a specific topic broached in the OP. This suggestion applies to how entities are handled in-game only. Not CC, nor other external environments. Entity...

Too complicated? Hmm, maybe if we re-frame this a bit then: The game engine already has a means of disabling blueprint saving all-together. That seems too draconian: as nobody could save anything...way too hardcore for my taste. This request seeks to delegate control to each and every player...

Wow, I didn't think of an "AllowCopy" removal option being leveraged in the market. That would be nifty...and it brings up an excellent point: as a derivative work, its only fair for buyer/seller to establish a dialog, and agree upon an equitable path forward.

These are the ways in which an admin can steal a design (there are others, this is just an offhand list), without you ever knowing: Existing command: /change_sector_copy Existing command: /change_sector_for_copy Administratively entering structure (including any structure its docked to) and...

Mixed feelings here... How about meeting in the middle on this: deny template "copy", but permit template "paste" on protected designs. Denying paste would hinder bulk modifications/enhancements. As for bulk copying of a protected design...well, at some point the player should probably spawn...