Read by Council Hinder design theft

[Ithirahad]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be against this solely for the reason that it would "inhibit innovation." For the most part, this would not affect innovative cycles and processes that already occur in the game, so far as I've seen. The main effect of a DRM system for ships would be... the intended effect of a DRM system for ships. Creating a market for ship designers, and preventing trivial design theft.
It might also lessen the impact of stupid spy nonsense in the faction side of the game, if faction leadership manages its blueprints properly, or at least make espionage harder and more interesting to pull off.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Agreed.

In fact, I think innovation would actually increase. Ship builders who want to remain competitive in the the new economy would need to constantly crank out new models to stay ahead of other designers who build craft specifically tailored to counter your current model of warship. Otherwise, you'd get a reputation for selling obsolete ships with easily exploited weaknesses. You also need to offer something new and stylish to attract new buyers; lest they get bored with your 'same old, same old'. Meanwhile, you can still sell your basic/classic models to new/newer players who are just starting out.

Example: rookie2016 signs in, is new/newer to StarMade. He doesn't want to join a faction just yet but can't defend himself with his starting blocks. He can buy basic pre-built defense turrets or even a small armed salvager. Then he can spend more time on mining and building instead of having to 'learn the game at gunpoint' from NPCs as so many of us have had to do.

To be honest, I've yet to see any drawback to a system like this. ...except of course, that any would-be spies and thieves would have to do a lot more than simply torch your ship and jump in to the core to snag a copy of the design. I mean, seriously; losing a single ship to theft is bad enough but to then be attacked by an entire fleet made up of copies of your missing ship is just disrespectful to designers everywhere.

 

[Lecic]

As I said, I have no interest in using anyone else's ships. I believe DRM is never the best solution to any problem. It isn't going to magically let people design ships and sell large numbers of them. It's going to remove some of the drive for innovation of ship design, and I would be disappointed to see that happen.

DRM will not remove "innovation from ship design." My evidence? The faction community, which creates and does not widely distribute their designs. Why do they keep innovating? Because they need to fly better ships than the competition. The same would apply to shipwrights under such a system, who would need to keep producing newer, better looking, betting functioning ships to continue to sell.

Besides- It's not like it's impossible to take innovating pieces out of a ship design without saving it.

 

[Jojomo]

I assure you; nothing above has been taken personally... by me, at least. My name was used just enough to compel me to come back and put some words behind that name.

I didn't ask you not to take it personally. I asked you not to make it personal.

a) If fellow designers are so appealing to you, why put us in such a compromising position when we are working to create a designer-friendly environment?

b) What you do with your work is your own business. Who are you to decide what other players do or do not do with their work?

c) You failed to avoid intellectual property theft in real life. Why do you think that we should be subjected to it in a video game?

d) While the suggestion is similar to digital rights management, your individual dislike of DRM is of little relevance to this thread. Given that (based on your own admissions) if implemented, such a feature would have ZERO effect on how you play the game, why are you so obsessed with affecting how others play?

a) I'm not putting anyone in any position. The current state of the game was not decided by me, and future states of the game will not be decided by me. Don't attribute your dissatisfaction to me.
The "needs" (desires) of one group (designers) has to be balanced against the good of the game and the SM community as a whole. Certainly this suggestion is good for designers (and me, I would gain more power over my designs), but it's not good for SM as a whole.

b) Again, stop blaming me. I don't make any decisions at Schine, I've decided nothing.

c) Intellectual property infringement. There's no such thing as IP theft (especially in this case where we're talking about designers knowingly and willingly selling their designs to the "thief").
I haven't stated that anyone should be subjected to infringement. I've stated that people need to adapt to an environment that (as they know) is conducive to copying, authorised or not.

d) The real life implications of DRM, that have been occurring for decades now, are very relevant. I'm concerned with more than just my own personal gain. I want the community to thrive, and that includes strong innovation in ship design (the core of the game in my opinion), which would be damaged by DRM.
For the third time, don't claim I am able to affect how people play. The state of play I'm advocating here is already the same state of play we are currently in.
[/quote]

I can't speak for anyone else but I will NEVER stop coming up with new ideas; regardless of how many ships I sell. Do you honestly expect us to believe that your support of design theft is based solely on a desire to see people keep designing new ships?Do you really think that poorly of your fellow designers?

There is no theft, and I don't support what you call theft. I object to DRM, because designers then expect old designs to carry their name and bottom line, instead of being forced to continuously innovate to stay ahead of the pack. We've seen it in real life, and with this suggestion we'd see it in SM.
Certainly I expect you to believe that this is what I care about. Whether you do or not is your own concern, but I'll continue to care about it, and voice my opinion on it.
[doublepost=1475012405,1475011886][/doublepost]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would be against this solely for the reason that it would "inhibit innovation." For the most part, this would not affect innovative cycles and processes that already occur in the game, so far as I've seen. The main effect of a DRM system for ships would be... the intended effect of a DRM system for ships. Creating a market for ship designers, and preventing trivial design theft.
It might also lessen the impact of stupid spy nonsense in the faction side of the game, if faction leadership manages its blueprints properly, or at least make espionage harder and more interesting to pull off.

As above, your belief is not my problem, but that is the reason.
How far have you seen? Have you seen DRM encourage trade and innovation anywhere? Have you considered how unpopular DRM is on games for example (Hello EA), and why?
It isn't the responsibility of the game to create a market to suit you. It's your responsibility to create a business that suits the market (if you want to make profit).
[doublepost=1475012845][/doublepost]

Agreed.

In fact, I think innovation would actually increase. Ship builders who want to remain competitive in the the new economy would need to constantly crank out new models to stay ahead of other designers who build craft specifically tailored to counter your current model of warship. Otherwise, you'd get a reputation for selling obsolete ships with easily exploited weaknesses. You also need to offer something new and stylish to attract new buyers; lest they get bored with your 'same old, same old'. Meanwhile, you can still sell your basic/classic models to new/newer players who are just starting out.

You're describing the status quo.
A designer who is motivated by profit will measure success by profit alone, and if an old design is providing and income stream new designs become less necessary.
If counters to your ship are suddenly much harder to come by, there's suddenly much less need for you to create a counter-counter. Innovation will slow, because the spread of designs among the population will slow.

To be honest, I've yet to see any drawback to a system like this. ...except of course, that any would-be spies and thieves would have to do a lot more than simply torch your ship and jump in to the core to snag a copy of the design. I mean, seriously; losing a single ship to theft is bad enough but to then be attacked by an entire fleet made up of copies of your missing ship is just disrespectful to designers everywhere.

Are you seriously advocating this suggestion to avoid "disrespect"?
It would effectively remove spying from the game, which would also be a pity. But don't forget, the main argument here is about designs willingly bought and sold.
[doublepost=1475012994][/doublepost]

DRM will not remove "innovation from ship design." My evidence? The faction community, which creates and does not widely distribute their designs. Why do they keep innovating? Because they need to fly better ships than the competition. The same would apply to shipwrights under such a system, who would need to keep producing newer, better looking, betting functioning ships to continue to sell.

Besides- It's not like it's impossible to take innovating pieces out of a ship design without saving it.

As I've said above, this suggestion would slow the spread of designs among the population, meaning the need for new designs in reaction would also slow.

 

[Ithirahad]

How far have you seen? Have you seen DRM encourage trade and innovation anywhere? Have you considered how unpopular DRM is on games for example (Hello EA), and why?

I've honestly not been paying much attention, but when there are complaints about DRM that reach my ears, it's because the system is stupid and/or unnecessarily strict and intrusive for its purpose. This DRM system would be neither of those.

It isn't the responsibility of the game to create a market to suit you. It's your responsibility to create a business that suits the market (if you want to make profit).

Yes, in a released game with plenty of markets and possibilities, but as of right now it's Schine's responsibility to create a game where there are meaningful markets in the first place. Ship design has great potential to be one of them, so it'd be good to implement features which allow/promote that.

 

[Lecic]

but it's not good for SM as a whole.

Allowing builders more control over who can manufacture their designs is good for SM as a whole.

Have you considered how unpopular DRM is on games for example (Hello EA), and why?

This is not a DRM issue. This is more like a patent issue. And yes, DRM is unpopular. Why is that? Three reasons. It gets in the way of legitimate customers, it makes moving software from one computer to another more difficult for customers, and, of course, it makes it harder to pirate.

Do any of these issues occur here?

Does it get in the way of legitimate customers? No, unless those customers want to save a copy for infinite duplication of their own, in which case, they should either offer a bigger payment to convince the owner to give them an unlocked copy, deal with it, or find someone willing to give away their designs like that.
Perhaps you might argue the second one gets in the way of people wanting to move servers. That is the only legitimate argument I have seen so far. But I would rather have builders get more control over their designs than someone moving away getting to keep that ship.
As for the third, well, we've already covered that, haven't we.

As I've said above, this suggestion would slow the spread of designs among the population, meaning the need for new designs in reaction would also slow.

Designs already spread slowly through the population. Some things took literal YEARS after their first use by factions to end up in public hands, and those were usually intentional. And, again, as said before, there is nothing preventing you from manually picking apart a ship to figure out how it works, to try and reverse engineer it- you just can't save it to make infinite copies yourself, screwing over the original designer and seller.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I didn't ask you not to take it personally. I asked you not to make it personal.

Personal... Impersonal... How you take it is up to you. This is a forum, not a bar fight.

a) I'm not putting anyone in any position. The current state of the game was not decided by me, and future states of the game will not be decided by me. Don't attribute your dissatisfaction to me.
The "needs" (desires) of one group (designers) has to be balanced against the good of the game and the SM community as a whole. Certainly this suggestion is good for designers (and me, I would gain more power over my designs), but it's not good for SM as a whole.

b) Again, stop blaming me. I don't make any decisions at Schine, I've decided nothing.

c) Intellectual property infringement. There's no such thing as IP theft (especially in this case where we're talking about designers knowingly and willingly selling their designs to the "thief").
I haven't stated that anyone should be subjected to infringement. I've stated that people need to adapt to an environment that (as they know) is conducive to copying, authorised or not.

d) The real life implications of DRM, that have been occurring for decades now, are very relevant. I'm concerned with more than just my own personal gain. I want the community to thrive, and that includes strong innovation in ship design (the core of the game in my opinion), which would be damaged by DRM.
For the third time, don't claim I am able to affect how people play. The state of play I'm advocating here is already the same state of play we are currently in.

a) given that you are in favor of allowing a play-style that alienates a large segment of players who add content that makes this game interesting; designers, you don't give the impression that you are able to tell what is good for SM as a whole.

b) This isn't about blame. Your idea that development of new ships will somehow come to a halt is unrealistic and incorrect. No one here is going to give up a chance to protect their hard work just so you can satisfy your incorrect assumptions. This is why you seem to be the only one against the idea.

c) ...or given that we're in a video game that is supposed to be 'fun', we can ask the development team of said video game to add/remove/change features that will make the game more 'fun' rather than allow for the irritating (and unnecessary) experiences we are subject to now. You claim to want to make the game grow yet you openly support game mechanics that discourage things like teamwork, cooperation and player controlled economies. Your argument is not a very good one and it's bordering on hypocritical.

d) At the end of the day, how much the community thrives will depend on how enjoyable an experience the players get when playing the game. Nothing you've said so far indicates that you know what players will do if a DRM system is introduced, nor does it signify an understanding of what the player-base wants. Finally, you haven't even really explained why you're so convinced that a DRM system would hurt the game beyond your one inaccurate assumption.

There is no theft, and I don't support what you call theft. I object to DRM, because designers then expect old designs to carry their name and bottom line, instead of being forced to continuously innovate to stay ahead of the pack. We've seen it in real life, and with this suggestion we'd see it in SM.
Certainly I expect you to believe that this is what I care about. Whether you do or not is your own concern, but I'll continue to care about it, and voice my opinion on it.

Are you seriously advocating this suggestion to avoid "disrespect"?
It would effectively remove spying from the game, which would also be a pity. But don't forget, the main argument here is about designs willingly bought and sold.

Tell me; what kind of a designer are you? Do you know anything about aesthetics? How about the pride or the personal satisfaction someone gets when they create something truly awe inspiring? You keep talking about 'profit' and 'innovation' as if we are doing this for the sole purpose of selling our ships. While that will open up doors for a better player-based economy, there is a lot more to creation than simply selling what you create. Only a true creator would understand something like that and it would be pretty arrogant of you to assume that you know the motivations of the other players who are all right here telling you what they are. Likewise, it is exponentially more arrogant for you to come here and preach that you know 'what's best for the community' when you're not on the dev team and you're the only one here arguing from your side of the fence.

As far as spying goes; let them do some actual work for a change. There is more to being an effective spy than just being a malicious D-bag. Ask the CIA, the Russians or the Chinese if you have any doubts on that.

 

[unelsson]

This conversation is getting needlessly personal and stingy. More listening, and constructive commenting pls. Trying to see the point here, I see there are arguments to support copy protection and good arguments against it.

There must be a distinction between actual intellectual property and ingame(roleplay) intellectual property. Actual intellectual property regarding ship designs is a matter of law. In some cases Starmade designs might hold a status of copyrightable artistic content. Those cases can't be properly enforced, and imho shouldnt be enforced with game rules.

Ingame though, I like the idea of rare/limited design blueprints as very valuable objects that require great care and trust to handle. I also like the gameplay option of espionage and design stealing. Minigame to break the copy protection would be fun, although not the most important development for the game. It would be fun if SM could simulate designers/manufacturers efforts to hold DRM. It would give gameplay choices for designers/corporations too. If copy protection is hard coded to make copying just not worth the effort, I feel like it takes features off the game and makes the playing experience worse. Balance can be hard to find.

However, reading how strongly people react to these things here, I'd only enjoy these game features if people could separate between misfortunes in the game and real world. That is also separating between ingame intellectual theft and actual intellectual theft. Whether or not copy protection is ethically or businesswise a good strategy in real world is not in the scope of this topic.

 

[Lecic]

Ingame though, I like the idea of rare/limited design blueprints as very valuable objects that require great care and trust to handle. I also like the gameplay option of espionage and design stealing. Minigame to break the copy protection would be fun, although not the most important development for the game. It would be fun if SM could simulate designers/manufacturers efforts to hold DRM. It would give gameplay choices for designers/corporations too. If copy protection is hard coded to make copying just not worth the effort, I feel like it takes features off the game and makes the playing experience worse. Balance can be hard to find.

I don't think there should be a way to steal the blueprint from the ship itself. If you want to know how it works, you should need to pull it apart and see how. If you want to steal the blueprint itself, that should require espionage.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

This conversation is getting needlessly personal and stingy. More listening, and constructive commenting pls. Trying to see the point here, I see there are arguments to support copy protection and good arguments against it.

There must be a distinction between actual intellectual property and ingame(roleplay) intellectual property. Actual intellectual property regarding ship designs is a matter of law. In some cases Starmade designs might hold a status of copyrightable artistic content. Those cases can't be properly enforced, and imho shouldnt be enforced with game rules.

Ingame though, I like the idea of rare/limited design blueprints as very valuable objects that require great care and trust to handle. I also like the gameplay option of espionage and design stealing. Minigame to break the copy protection would be fun, although not the most important development for the game. It would be fun if SM could simulate designers/manufacturers efforts to hold DRM. It would give gameplay choices for designers/corporations too. If copy protection is hard coded to make copying just not worth the effort, I feel like it takes features off the game and makes the playing experience worse. Balance can be hard to find.

However, reading how strongly people react to these things here, I'd only enjoy these game features if people could separate between misfortunes in the game and real world. That is also separating between ingame intellectual theft and actual intellectual theft. Whether or not copy protection is ethically or businesswise a good strategy in real world is not in the scope of this topic.

Ok, look at it this way. You have a choice.

a) You can have an environment where people share, trade, cooperate and contribute to a widespread (and growing) player-controlled economy; a place where creativity is rewarded with strength and respect while laziness and lack of imagination breeds weakness and stagnation. People are neither scared of joining a faction nor scared to recruit new members. Spying/espionage takes true skill rather than just a mean streak and the ability to lie to your recruiters via chat and it is rewarded, not only with the item/ship you stole but with the knowledge to become a better builder/designer...

or

b) You can have an environment filled with paranoid one-man factions where no one trusts anyone else and everyone keeps their designs locked away; out of fear that some malicious dirt bag will come along, steal it, then either spread it across the server or come back with a bunch of copies of that ship to spank the crap out of the original designer. Then after one theft too many, designer's start to quit StarMade and play other games; taking their creativity and innovation along with them.

Which universe do you prefer?

 

[Madman198237]

While Dr. Whammy does take it to extremes, he is, in essence, accurate. Property protection in this way encourages improvement, since you can't just simply steal an enemy vessel's design. You have to steal it, break it down piece by piece, then remake it, then save it (Gets even harder if you forbid template-making from a vessel that is "copyrighted' in this way). Or, you just steal it, check out the tech, and rebuild your ships to match or defeat your enemies' particular weaknesses.

Now that is what true industrial espionage is. Well, that and maybe blowing up shipyards...but that's a matter for another post.

 

[KillaKrazy]

This conversation is getting needlessly personal and stingy. More listening, and constructive commenting pls. Trying to see the point here, I see there are arguments to support copy protection and good arguments against it.

What arguments against it? He used extremely biased and one sided arguments to attempt to prove his point. Not once could he actually point to in-game evidence against this argument. If you want to use real world arguments this would be more akin to the auto industry not DRM or the fashion industry.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Yeah, this issue does have more of a manufacturing feel to it. After all, a Ford employee can't just go a Ferrari dealership, buy the latest model, then instantly have the ability to mass produce Ford-made Ferrari clones.

Madman198237 has reminded me that I need to drink decaf before I post...

All jokes aside, I hope everyone here realizes that the intent is to make the game balanced and more enjoyable for everyone. Content is what will keep this game going strong. We need to do what it takes to keep quality designers around and not penalize them when they add even more content to it. We can keep espionage possible but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now. Spying as it stands now, is incredibly broken.

 

[sayerulz]

This system would not even remotely discourage innovation. In fact, it would encourage it. The reasons are quite simple.

Currently: Faction A makes a cool new ship, that is superior to anything anyone else has on the server. So faction B goes and steals it. There is now one best ship on the server. If faction B makes a still better design, then faction A can go steal it. Now there will always be just one "best" ship used on the server.

If design theft were hindered under this system: Faction A makes a new ship. Faction B can't copy it directly, so they make a knockoff that is slightly inferior. They learn things from building this knockoff, so later they make their own design that is superior to the knockoff or the original. Now there are 3 usable designs on the server.

Something that would discourage innovation would be more like what we have in real life: If a ship has x number of blocks in common with your designs, you can make a copyright claim and take all of the player that owns it's stuff. Hire space-lawyers to decrease the number of blocks it has to have in common.

 

[Jojomo]

Personal... Impersonal... How you take it is up to you. This is a forum, not a bar fight.

Excellent observation. Please try to keep it in mind when you post, and make the topic of the OP the subject of your points, instead of making me the subject of your points.

I've honestly not been paying much attention, but when there are complaints about DRM that reach my ears, it's because the system is stupid and/or unnecessarily strict and intrusive for its purpose. This DRM system would be neither of those.

Do you think ever in the history of DRM that the architects thought it was stupid or unecessarily strict and intrusive? Of they didn't, but most of them were wrong.

Yes, in a released game with plenty of markets and possibilities, but as of right now it's Schine's responsibility to create a game where there are meaningful markets in the first place. Ship design has great potential to be one of them, so it'd be good to implement features which allow/promote that.

You don't need restrictions like DRM to create a market. There are many, many companies profitably competing against free competitors (any successful company that competes against illegal file sharing, for example). There are also many companies successfully competing in markets without any effective IP protection.

Allowing builders more control over who can manufacture their designs is good for SM as a whole.

Why is it good for SM as a whole? That certainly isn't my opinion.

This is not a DRM issue. This is more like a patent issue.

It's a perfect, textbook example of DRM. We're talking about preventing copying of digital content.

And yes, DRM is unpopular. Why is that? Three reasons. It gets in the way of legitimate customers, it makes moving software from one computer to another more difficult for customers, and, of course, it makes it harder to pirate.

Do any of these issues occur here?

Yes. Legitimate customers will find it more difficult to repair and modify designs they're paid for, and as you point out, use designs they've paid for on other servers.

Popularity of DRM isn't the issue at hand though. DRM's effect on innovation is. DRM means less pressure on designers to continuously churn out new and innovative designs (revenue from old designs is protected), and slows the spread of designs among the population, so slows down the arms race that also drives innovation.

Designs already spread slowly through the population. Some things took literal YEARS after their first use by factions to end up in public hands, and those were usually intentional.

Years to spread? Why is anyone feeling the need for DRM then?

And, again, as said before, there is nothing preventing you from manually picking apart a ship to figure out how it works, to try and reverse engineer it- you just can't save it to make infinite copies yourself, screwing over the original designer and seller.

Many things in SM are absrtacted for our convenience (building a large ship is nowhere near as easy as placing a bunch of 1m3 blocks for example), and it's perfectly reasonable to want reverse engineering to be abstracted to some degree also.

I don't think there should be a way to steal the blueprint from the ship itself. If you want to know how it works, you should need to pull it apart and see how. If you want to steal the blueprint itself, that should require espionage.

For something as large as a ship in real life there's no need to pull it all apart to know how to reverse engineer it. You only need to move through it and record data. Abstracting that process to accessing the core in SM seems fitting.

Yeah, this issue does have more of a manufacturing feel to it. After all, a Ford employee can't just go a Ferrari dealership, buy the latest model, then instantly have the ability to mass produce Ford-made Ferrari clones.

Yes it does have that feel in game, but in reality it's a vanilla case of DRM. We're talking about digital content we consume sitting on our chairs in front of our screens.

All jokes aside, I hope everyone here realizes that the intent is to make the game balanced and more enjoyable for everyone. Content is what will keep this game going strong. We need to do what it takes to keep quality designers around and not penalize them when they add even more content to it. We can keep espionage possible but it shouldn't be as easy as it is now. Spying as it stands now, is incredibly broken.

New content is what will keep the game strong, not just "content". I've pointed out above in this post how DRM slows innovation.

Are designers currently penalised? Does their position become worse upon completing a design? Why would anyone keep designing if that were true?

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Excellent observation. Please try to keep it in mind when you post, and make the topic of the OP the subject of your points, instead of making me the subject of your points.

You became my 'subject' the instant you derailed the thread and started this DRM argument of yours. Weak arguments are like blood in the water to me. If you were offended by all of this, that was not my intention but you might try offering a more in depth explanation of your point that more accurately reflects the way this game and its players work.

- Do you think ever in the history of DRM that the architects thought it was stupid or unecessarily strict and intrusive? Of they didn't, but most of them were wrong.

- You don't need restrictions like DRM to create a market. There are many, many companies profitably competing against free competitors (any successful company that competes against illegal file sharing, for example). There are also many companies successfully competing in markets without any effective IP protection.

- Why is it good for SM as a whole? That certainly isn't my opinion.

- It's a perfect, textbook example of DRM. We're talking about preventing copying of digital content.

- Popularity of DRM isn't the issue at hand though. DRM's effect on innovation is. DRM means less pressure on designers to continuously churn out new and innovative designs (revenue from old designs is protected), and slows the spread of designs among the population, so slows down the arms race that also drives innovation.

- Yes. Legitimate customers will find it more difficult to repair and modify designs they're paid for, and as you point out, use designs they've paid for on other servers.

You've written quite a lot but you still haven't made a decent argument. These quotes of yours show that you do not have an understanding of how this game's player-base thinks. You are still arguing the "innovation will decrease" angle and being incredibly presumptuous in the process. You cannot predict what other players will and will not do and you're not taking the development team's plans into account. Likewise; you have no say in what other players want and do not want. Here we all are; flat out telling you and you won't listen.

 

[Jojomo]

<snip>

Wrong subject again: I am not part of the OP.

Pass.

 

[KillaKrazy]

Wrong subject again: I am not part of the OP.

Pass.

Not once have you ever been able to provide any sort of argument with evidence from the game on how limiting the copying of BP's would be bad. All you can come up with are lame and weak excuses about DRM and the fashion industry, all of which have no meaning or bearing in a game environment. Newsflash! Within the context of the game, ships are physical assets not some digital entity that lives within the game. This is not a DRM issue or concern, stop trying to interject it into the arguement. Finally, In case you didn't realize, which I don't think you did because you are quite daft, the real world has multiple barriers that allow the real world to operate the way it does. StarMade does not have those barriers and most likely never will due to being a game. If Ford bought a Toyota, brought it back to the factory, and started building it exactly alike they would be sued and fined into bankruptcy. (See I can use very biased real world examples as well)

Now, if you can't come up with any type of decent argument then quite honestly, get the hell off this thread. Everything you have posted has been nothing more than white noise derailing a suggesting, that by the seems of it, most of the builders want. Considering the lack of time you have played the game and your continuous useless posts it just sounds like you want to be able copy everyone's BP.

Additionally, since I have time and you're extremely annoying in your lack of knowledge, the current state of affairs for building and selling ships in StarMade is extremely lacking. At the moment builders build their ships and horde them never letting them see the light of day. Why is that? Who the hell wants to spend all the time designing ships to make one sale before they make endless copies for themselves. I'm not going to spend time to design a ship for one sale to just go back to the drawing board.

Now, if you actually learned the game before trying to argue against valid suggestions you would realize StarMade only has one play style with things to do. That is mine, build, fight. Want to be a trade? Good luck making it anywhere, every system within every galaxy contains every resource. People would rather mine their own items than spend the time trying to trade. Want to be a ship building faction? Actually read the above posts to see why these factions never last very long. You obviously have no idea how much time and work goes into building a ship. You would literally have to build hundreds of ships each month to keep any type of income coming in under a system that you think is perfect.

 

[Jojomo]

If you'd actually like to discuss a point I've made, KK, I'd be happy to reply.

I'm not going to respond to a personal attack though.

 

[Lukwan]

1. your reputation is built on your past designs, and any customer who's impressed by them and comes to you finnds you've been working on new designs that aren't in the wild yet. I.e. keep designing to stay ahead of the copycats.
2. Your businuess is not selling a completed ship you designed, it's selling a service: the customer has seen your old designs and likes them, so they come to you and ask you to create a custom design. You design to their specifications, but with your processes and style.

1) Mythical 'good customer' fails to learn who actually designed previous builds due to design theft and loss of build-credit to the creator.

2) Theoretical 'new' customer just waits to rip off your latest design because paying commission is for chumps. Or...at best; creative designers are left working in the 'service industry' with the waiters and shoe-shine attendants (pining for those rare 'good customers' who want to nit-pick every detail of their brilliant commission-job rather than figure out how to build on their own).

Sit back and watch as the creativity grows in the carefully cultivated fields of indifference. :p