Read by Council Hinder design theft

[Deserea]

I dont know, honestly if a ship gets damaged enough that it overheats, is there much that they can steal? i decided to bring one of my ships that ill be publishing at some point, to the point of overheating yesterday while thinking about this thread, and honestly it had so many holes, and its systems where so badly destroyed that i dont think i would have had a problem with someone else blueprinting it. The weapon systems where totally gone, and all the docked entities i had on board had already been destroyed. The interior was so badly gutted that there wasnt much left either. For someone to rebuild that ship, and even get it close, they would have spent a lot more time rebuilding it, if they could even match it perfectly to the original on memory alone(which i doubt)

 

[Erth Paradine]

I dont know, honestly if a ship gets damaged enough that it overheats, is there much that they can steal? i decided to bring one of my ships that ill be publishing at some point, to the point of overheating yesterday while thinking about this thread, and honestly it had so many holes, and its systems where so badly destroyed that i dont think i would have had a problem with someone else blueprinting it. The weapon systems where totally gone, and all the docked entities i had on board had already been destroyed. The interior was so badly gutted that there wasnt much left either. For someone to rebuild that ship, and even get it close, they would have spent a lot more time rebuilding it, if they could even match it perfectly to the original on memory alone(which i doubt)

Try doubling the size of your ship by adding a bunch of cheap blocks. Destroy the cheap blocks, done; you now have a pristine design to copy.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I'd

I dont know, honestly if a ship gets damaged enough that it overheats, is there much that they can steal? i decided to bring one of my ships that ill be publishing at some point, to the point of overheating yesterday while thinking about this thread, and honestly it had so many holes, and its systems where so badly destroyed that i dont think i would have had a problem with someone else blueprinting it. The weapon systems where totally gone, and all the docked entities i had on board had already been destroyed. The interior was so badly gutted that there wasnt much left either. For someone to rebuild that ship, and even get it close, they would have spent a lot more time rebuilding it, if they could even match it perfectly to the original on memory alone(which i doubt)

I'd have to agree with Erth Paradine, and as such, I have to ask; how big was your ship?

Food for thought: Several months ago, I took one of my Mobile Command Systems, upgraded it then used it to attack an un-modded copy of it.

After 10 minutes of medium/heavy missile strikes, the clone MCS overheated. The damage was extensive but the craft was highly recognizable. recognizable. assessing the damage, I estimate that I could have rebooted the craft's systems and had roughly 75-80 of the same functionality, minus turrets and that it could have been rebuilt without a lot of problems.

I don't know how big your ship is but I'm sure that anyone playing StarMade on a multi-player server with PVP can agree that if they made a Death Star, posing as a giant space ship, posing as a giant space station, that they wouldn't want such a thing to fall into the hands of other factions; perfect copy or not.

 

[Deserea]

Try doubling the size of your ship by adding a bunch of cheap blocks. Destroy the cheap blocks, done; you now have a pristine design to copy.

ah but that could be solved easily enough i believe. Using the idea of the block that prevents it(assuming the block is impossible to destroy, under normal circumstances.) and we can combine the shipyard idea into this, using the design. 50% of the original designs blocks would have to be destroyed for the (permission block?) to be able to be destroyed, and even then that block is harder to destroy than normal. It wouldnt be able to be gotten around either that i can see.

Edited : For the design to be able to be saved, and used as a blueprint, a minimum of 50% and up to a maximum of 75% of the original ship would have to be destroyed.

I'd

I'd have to agree with Erth Paradine, and as such, I have to ask; how big was your ship?

Food for thought: Several months ago, I took one of my Mobile Command Systems, upgraded it then used it to attack an un-modded copy of it.
View attachment 33073
After 10 minutes of medium/heavy missile strikes, the clone MCS overheated. The damage was extensive but the craft was highly recognizable. recognizable. assessing the damage, I estimate that I could have rebooted the craft's systems and had roughly 75-80 of the same functionality, minus turrets and that it could have been rebuilt without a lot of problems.

I don't know how big your ship is but I'm sure that anyone playing StarMade on a multi-player server with PVP can agree that if they made a Death Star, posing as a giant space ship, posing as a giant space station, that they wouldn't want such a thing to fall into the hands of other factions; perfect copy or not.

My ship that i destroyed was sitting at 75k mass, the one i used to destroy it was sitting at 125k mass, so fairly large for me.

One of the missile batteries on the larger vessel got through the armor setup of the smaller one and destroyed as i said, almost all the weapons, and gutted a large amount of its extra modules.

The ship was still recognizable, even with the holes. To me though, i like the idea of being able to take a destroyed vessel, and Ork it out(w40k reference).

 

[Dr. Whammy]

ah but that could be solved easily enough i believe. Using the idea of the block that prevents it(assuming the block is impossible to destroy, under normal circumstances.) and we can combine the shipyard idea into this, using the design. 50% of the original designs blocks would have to be destroyed for the (permission block?) to be able to be destroyed, and even then that block is harder to destroy than normal. It wouldnt be able to be gotten around either that i can see.

For the design to be able to be saved, and used, 50% or more, could even be 75% of the original ship would have to be removed, or destroyed.

- We already have an indestructable block (Ship core) that defines a ship
- We already have a block (faction module) that is used to assign/modify permissions to a ship or station.
- Stations carry their identity as stations based on having ANY block still existing and can have their permissions set/modified via faction modules.

Block-wise; we have everything in place to make this work. All that's needed is to decide on the most desired copy-protection solution, add the desired functions to the already existing blocks and then go sell some space ships...

Just in case I've missed something, will someone please explain why another block is needed?

 

[Erth Paradine]

ah but that could be solved easily enough i believe. Using the idea of the block that prevents it(assuming the block is impossible to destroy, under normal circumstances.) and we can combine the shipyard idea into this, using the design. 50% of the original designs blocks would have to be destroyed for the (permission block?) to be able to be destroyed, and even then that block is harder to destroy than normal. It wouldnt be able to be gotten around either that i can see.

Edited : For the design to be able to be saved, and used as a blueprint, a minimum of 50% and up to a maximum of 75% of the original ship would have to be destroyed.
...

An indestructible block on a destructible entity, how exactly would that work? For that matter, are you proposing that the game engine now compare two entity designs (e.g. original/saved vs current condition), in order to determine amount of destruction? That sounds like a massive computational requirement, and a formula for significant performance problems...and "harder" still does not mean impossible. The OP's goal is to eliminate the possibility of insta-copy, while not adding to already problematic combat math, and I just don't see how yet another permissions block gets us there.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Edited : For the design to be able to be saved, and used as a blueprint, a minimum of 50% and up to a maximum of 75% of the original ship would have to be destroyed.

No...

My ship that i destroyed was sitting at 75k mass, the one i used to destroy it was sitting at 125k mass, so fairly large for me.

One of the missile batteries on the larger vessel got through the armor setup of the smaller one and destroyed as i said, almost all the weapons, and gutted a large amount of its extra modules.

The ship was still recognizable, even with the holes. To me though, i like the idea of being able to take a destroyed vessel, and Ork it out(w40k reference).

Noted.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

A ship gets toasted... They already get the kill and the resources. If they want the design as well, they need to do the work; not get a freebee just because.

 

[Deserea]

An indestructible block on a destructible entity, how exactly would that work? For that matter, are you proposing that the game engine now compare two ship designs, in order to determine amount of destruction? That sounds like a massive computational requirement, and a formula for significant performance problems...and "harder" still does not mean impossible. The OP's goal is to eliminate the possibility of insta-copy, while not adding to already problematic ship combat math , and I just don't see how a permissions block gets us there.

While the OPS goal is to eliminate insta copy, from what i can see, maybe i missed something, i tried reading the entire thread, and its pretty long, i may have missed a post or two while doing so, it also eliminates really any kind of blueprinting.

It would work actually, once a percentage of the original designs(well cut blueprints out entirely and just use the design.) blocks get destroyed(50-75%) the block becomes destructible.
i really have no clue how the designs work(computational wise), but would be to hard to have the game look at say an Isanth IVs design, and then compare it to the original Isanth IVs design and get % of block difference between the original and the copy?

Im all for stopying theft of designs believe me, i hate thieves, but, i also dont think its stealing to use a ship thats been heavily damaged in combat. In all honesty i think it could easily be solved by permanently marking the original ships designer, so even if a blueprint was saved, and used, the designers name would always be on it, so even if someone did steal it, their name would never, ever, be on the design.

 

[Erth Paradine]

While the OPS goal is to eliminate insta copy, from what i can see, maybe i missed something, i tried reading the entire thread, and its pretty long, i may have missed a post or two while doing so, it also eliminates really any kind of blueprinting.

It would work actually, once a percentage of the original designs(well cut blueprints out entirely and just use the design.) blocks get destroyed(50-75%) the block becomes destructible.
i really have no clue how the designs work(computational wise), but would be to hard to have the game look at say an Isanth IVs design, and then compare it to the original Isanth IVs design and get % of block difference between the original and the copy?

Im all for stopying theft of designs believe me, i hate thieves, but, i also dont think its stealing to use a ship thats been heavily damaged in combat. In all honesty i think it could easily be solved by permanently marking the original ships designer, so even if a blueprint was saved, and used, the designers name would always be on it, so even if someone did steal it, their name would never, ever, be on the design.

The proposal only denies blueprinting (e.g. insta-copy) if the original spawner made that choice. We're on page 16 of this discussion now, and I still haven't seen a good argument yet, in favor of permitting insta-copy.

As for your proposed block destruction idea, we're still back to the problem of what happens when someone adds enough wire mesh blocks, that they now take up 99% of a ship's mass (or block count), the player then destroys the wire mesh blocks...now they have a pristine design to duplicate. That's exactly the outcome which the OP seeks to prevent.

I do agree that theft of ships is a valid game mechanic, as is the ability to operate a stolen ship. Although the OP never suggests such capabilities should be limited, and in-fact the latest evolution of this discussion provides a means for players to continue building and repairing such entities, and the ability to save "repair designs" onboard the ship itself. What a thief loses though, is the right/ability to insta-copy a stolen ship, in any size, condition, or capacity, as such a function has no real-world analogy, and the goal here is to help encourage players to share more designs, while also providing for additional in-game capabilities/roles.

 

[Deserea]

No...


Noted.

I said it before and I'll say it again.

A ship gets toasted... They already get the kill and the resources. If the want the design as well, they need to do the work; not get a freebee just because.

id say a portion of doing the work was the combat, but thats just me, combat to me isnt enjoyable and is more of a chore than reverse engineering an entire vessel, which ive done as well.

The proposal only denies blueprinting (e.g. insta-copy) if the original spawner made that choice. We're on page 16 of this discussion now, and I still haven't seen a good argument yet, in favor of permitting insta-copy.

As for your proposed block destruction idea, we're still back to the problem of what happens when someone adds enough wire mesh blocks, that they now take up 99% of a ship's mass (or block count), the player then destroys the wire mesh blocks...now they have a pristine design to duplicate. That's exactly the outcome which the OP seeks to prevent.

I do agree that theft of ships is a valid game mechanic, as is the ability to operate a stolen ship. Although the OP never suggests such capabilities should be limited, and in-fact the latest evolution of this discussion provides a means for players to continue building and repairing such entities, and the ability to save "repair designs" onboard the ship itself. What a thief loses though, is the right/ability to insta-copy a stolen ship, in any size, condition, or capacity.

their is no good argument in favor of permitting insta-copy, my idea doesnt allow that either.

My proposal prevents that. you can add as many blocks as you want, it only checks the blocks originally placed on the design.

for an example.

I destroy an Isanth IV(fairly small doesnt have a lot of blocks to begin with) but i destroy one under the new system)
i place a bunch of mesh blocks in the hopes of being able to do as you suggested could happen.
game checks the design of the Isanth IV i have, and am trying to blueprint/save, against the design of the original Isanth IV.
Game sees that more than 50% of the blocks in the original design are still present on the modified design, and doesnt allow me to save it.
in order to save it for future use, id have to remove more than 50% of the blocks in the original unmodified design for the ship.


But, lets take this one step further
Well use the ravens lord, a WIP ship i have,(you can see it if you wish, in my shipyard thread)

currently sitting at 12ok mass, and 880k blocks. In order to save the vessel, id have to bring(the original blocks placed as per the design) down to 440k. removing an entire half of the ship.
we dont even need a new block at this point, it could just be coded that way into the design itself, if editing permissions are in place.

It might be a bit to complicated for the game to handle, i really dont know that.

 

[Lukwan]

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.

I'm afraid to even suggest this. We don't want a new permission-block...we don't wan't a new, indestructible block. That leaves...

...the core. Does it make sense that the core is used as the block-that-maintains-build/copy-permission list?

 

[unelsson]

I feel like you are drifting into thinking that no one likes insta-copying. I am in favor of adding optional copy-protection feature to a faction block, but allowing insta-copying if you manage to destroy the (possibly well shielded and securely placed) faction block.

 

[Erth Paradine]

My proposal prevents that. you can add as many blocks as you want, it only checks the blocks originally placed on the design.
...
we dont even need a new block at this point, it could just be coded that way into the design itself, if editing permissions are in place.

It might be a bit to complicated for the game to handle, i really dont know that.

At present, the game engine does not store a beginning and current design, it is all about what's currently in space.

As for original vs new blocks. How does the game engine differentiate between someone doing a large quantity block replacement. For instance, replacing all black advanced armor with black standard. Such strategies would still lead to eventually an insta-copy design, the thief would simply need to take a couple notes, and reverse the mass block replacements, once they have the blueprint.

Your suggestion also does not address the inherent performance issues, of demanding the game engine now regularly compute/compare starting vs current designs. That really needs to be addressed before we can take this theory any further, as the game already has a fair share of performance bottlenecks, and I'd hate to see a suggestion adding significantly to that.

 

[Deserea]

At present, the game engine does not store a beginning and current design, it is all about what's currently in space.

As for original vs new blocks. How does the game engine differentiate between someone doing a large quantity block replacement. For instance, replacing all black advanced armor with black standard. Such strategies would still lead to eventually an insta-copy design, the thief would simply need to take a couple notes, and reverse the mass block replacements, once they have the blueprint.

Your suggestion also does not address the inherent performance issues, of demanding the game engine now regularly compute/compare starting vs current designs. That really needs to be addressed before we can take this theory any further, as the game already has a fair share of performance bottlenecks, and I'd hate to see a suggestion adding significantly to that.

yup, that what the final line i placed was about, i really dont know how badly my idea would hinder the games performance and if it does to much(or really at all) my idea wont work.

I didnt think about just switching out blocks at all actually, so thats a new one to me.

And to Unelesson, i can sort of agree with that, but, the faction block is easily destroyed in current gameplay, so it would still be far to easy to allow insta copying.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I'm afraid to even suggest this. We don't want a new permission-block...we don't wan't a new, indestructible block. That leaves...

...the core. Does it make sense that the core is used as the block-that-maintains-build/copy-permission list?

That was the point I was trying to convey when I said...

" - We already have an indestructable block (Ship core) that defines a ship
- We already have a block (faction module) that is used to assign/modify permissions to a ship or station.
- Stations carry their identity as stations based on having ANY block still existing and can have their permissions set/modified via faction modules.

Block-wise; we have everything in place to make this work. All that's needed is to decide on the most desired copy-protection solution, add the desired functions to the already existing blocks and then go sell some space ships... "

I feel like you are drifting into thinking that no one likes insta-copying. I am in favor of adding optional copy-protection feature to a faction block, but allowing insta-copying if you manage to destroy the (possibly well shielded and securely placed) faction block.

If you want your designs insta-copied, there is nothing preventing you from turning your copy protection off. If someone else doesn't want their stuff insta-copied, then there should be a provision for that in which they are in full control of their design distribution.

Your right to insta-copy someone's work ends where that someone has a desire to protect what they design.

 

[unelsson]

Your right to insta-copy someone's work ends where that someone has a desire to protect what they design.

Well now, our opinions differ here. For me, this is about defining the rules on how we play, and some people like different rules than others. If by "right to insta-copy", you are referring to universal copyright laws, that's quite a different matter, and I think you should read StarMade on that.

It says: "If you make any content available on or through our Game, you must give us permission to use, copy, modify and adapt that content. This permission must be irrevocable, and you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content. If you don‘t want to give us this permission, do not make content available on or through our Game. Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like."

 

[Deserea]

If you want your designs insta-copied, there is nothing preventing you from turning your copy protection off. If someone else doesn't want their stuff insta-copied, then there should be a provision for that in which they are in full control of their design distribution.

Your right to insta-copy someone's work ends where that someone has a desire to protect what they design.

My whole problem honestly, is that if you want a design protected that badly, you may as well never ever use it for anything unless its tournaments or duels with good friends.

I publish my designs because i would like people to use them, if they use it to learn weapon systems or how design elements, or use it to build a new ship, or hell, just use the design as is(id be overjoyed to encounter someone use the Ravens Call in an online server, to me it would show just how much they appreciated the ship), because honestly some people cant build anything better than a block of bricks, and maybe, for them to learn how to build, they have to take over a few ships.

Goodness knows i wouldnt be building my ships as detailed as i do now, if ASM, and a few others on the NFD build server hadnt given me some vessels to use to learn from, or actually built something for me on my own ship, because i couldnt. hell, ive even "stolen" vessels from online servers and then taken them back to my base, saved them from the server i was on for offline use, and then spawned them in single player, so i could study, and duplicate how the original creator made some of the ships features, done the same with space stations too.

Some people learn how to build, by using other peoples work, is what im getting at, im one of them.

Without being able to do that, id still be building ships like this.

(couldnt find the example i was looking for, it was literally nothing more than a triangle, but this suffices, since i stayed building ships like this for about a year, thinking they looked good.)

Nothing more than massive squares, is all that ship is made of.

But enough of my two sense in this thread, ive thrown out my ideas and had a nice discussion about them, id rather not take away from the idea presented in this thread further.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Well now, our opinions differ here. For me, this is about defining the rules on how we play, and some people like different rules than others. If by "right to insta-copy", you are referring to universal copyright laws, that's quite a different matter, and I think you should read StarMade on that.

It says: "If you make any content available on or through our Game, you must give us permission to use, copy, modify and adapt that content. This permission must be irrevocable, and you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content. If you don‘t want to give us this permission, do not make content available on or through our Game. Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like."

If you work for Schine, that's ok. If you're just another player, then no; you don't have rights to insta-copy someone's work. That's not an opinion but a fact evidenced by the fact that CC does not contain every build from every player.

Get legal if you like but that kind of argument has no bearing on this discussion; hence why we are promoting an in-game mechanic rather than a law passed through Congress.

 

[Erth Paradine]

Well now, our opinions differ here. For me, this is about defining the rules on how we play, and some people like different rules than others. If by "right to insta-copy", you are referring to universal copyright laws, that's quite a different matter, and I think you should read StarMade on that.

It says: "If you make any content available on or through our Game, you must give us permission to use, copy, modify and adapt that content. This permission must be irrevocable, and you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content. If you don‘t want to give us this permission, do not make content available on or through our Game. Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like."

The OP, and ongoing theme of this thread, is NOT about protecting any design from being copied, it's about hindering (and/or simply halting) insta-copy as a standard part of gameplay...and there's a distinct difference there.

By hindering insta-copy, we are simply giving ship designers/builders a choice: shall someone need to exert a lot of effort towards duplicating your design, or do you (as the original builder) permit the use of what's effectively endless brain-dead replication.
[doublepost=1475771019,1475769838][/doublepost]

My whole problem honestly, is that if you want a design protected that badly, you may as well never ever use it for anything unless its tournaments or duels with good friends.

I publish [share] my designs because i would like people to use them,
...
Goodness knows i wouldnt be building my ships as detailed as i do now, if ASM, and a few others on the NFD build server hadnt given me some vessels to use to learn from, or actually built something for me on my own ship
...

This proposal does not hinder these forms of gameplay at all.

...
hell, ive even "stolen" vessels from online servers and then taken them back to my base, saved them from the server i was on for offline use, and then spawned them in single player, so i could study, and duplicate how the original creator made some of the ships features, done the same with space stations too.
...

You'll still be able to do this, with the caveat that you'll need to study/duplicate the original creator's work, while still logged-into that server, ONLY if the original creator opted to deny insta-copy (e.g. deny blueprint/design creation from an entity that they originally spawned).

...
Some people learn how to build, by using other peoples work, is what im getting at, im one of them.
...

Yep, YouTube build videos put me to sleep, unless I can slow it down to watch the builder work. I've also lost count the number of ships I've downloaded from CC, picked-apart, and integrated into my own designs. Nothing in the OP denies anyone's ability to continue doing exactly this.

 

[Deserea]

You'll still be able to do this, with the caveat that you'll need to study/duplicate the original creator's work, while still logged-into that server, ONLY if the original creator opted to deny insta-copy (e.g. deny blueprint/design creation from an entity that they originally spawned).

Thats my major problem with this. I maybe log into a server once a week, if that(when i have internet at all which isnt often lately, this is the most internet use ive had in four months, most of the time i dont have any because of my job), if i know my friends are on, and i seldom build a new ship on a live server unless its a build server. when it comes to RP or pvp servers, i use ships ive already made, and blueprinted, its easier that way, and it allows me to have some time to get the resources for them when i play.