Read by Council Hinder design theft

    Joined
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages
    256
    Reaction score
    73
    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.
    We've discussed your points and you were unable to provide a single example with how this would be bad or hurt the game. The only thing it would hurt are those players who want to steal other's creations.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    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
    Is the creativity flagging in the current state of the game?

    Welcome to the world of business.

    1) Advertise. Post designs here. Develop a distinctive style that's unique and easily recognisable.

    2) Pay in instalments at construction milestones. It's common in real life.

    You want to do precisely what you feel like when you feel like it, and make a nice profit too? That's completely unrealistic. Pick one or the other as the most important, or a balance of the two, because both together is incredibly unlikely for even a single person.
     
    Last edited:

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,789
    Reaction score
    1,723
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    KillaKrazy and the others have totally nailed it. I have a lot of ships posted only as pictures on this forum. I've been asked via email for designs ranging from my power armor to my ASC Challenger logic rail gun to my 100x torpedo launcher. And you know what? With the exception of the two personal favors I've done for players that I've spent a good amount of time with online, my designs will NEVER be sold or given away while spying/theft is as easy as it is now. I restrict access to my knowledge so that lazy plagiarists don't steal and exploit it. I know many of you do the same thing for the same reasons. This copy-protection idea will not slow or stop the spread of innovation. It will expand it.

    Jojomo's argument has failed and he's simply writing for attention now. I'm 'powering down my disruptors' and 'returning to base'. I suggest we put this thread back on its original course so that we can offer Schine something of substance rather than just another flame war.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages
    256
    Reaction score
    73
    Is the creativity flagging in the current state of the game?

    Welcome to the world of business.

    1) Advertise. Post designs here. Develop a distinctive style that's unique and easily recognisable.

    2) Pay in instalments at construction milestones. It's common in real life.

    You want to do precisely what you feel like when you feel like it, and make a nice profit too? That's completely unrealistic. Pick one or the other as the most important, or a balance of the two, because both together is incredibly unlikely for even a single person.
    1) Doesn't really make a difference when that person will just go on and build himself an endless supply of said ship.

    2) Common in real life. It's also very common to have to continually pay for the finished product. The USG and the military are great examples of this. When designing/building new aircraft or vehicles they pay the companies as they hit milestones and development timelines. Guess what, they also continue to pay for the finished product after it is developed. You don't see the military building the F-35.

    Have you ever stopped and thought about why in the real world these systems work? And why they wouldn't work within a game such as StarMade. It would be impossible to develop a game that had all of the constraints present in the real world. You keep thinking that the game universe is the exact same as the real world, it isn't. There are logistical, education, guess what, legal, ect constraints present in the real world that are not present within the game universe.
     
    Joined
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages
    964
    Reaction score
    225
    • Wired for Logic
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    pheeeew that became a bit heated in the middle didn't it?

    Well, as it seems that Jojomo is the only person (I saw in my 50% scoop reading) opposed to the idea of copyright.
    because of the fact that the last 4 pages became a bit messy, personal and more about winning an argument (or so it seemed);
    Could you state the solid arguments why optional copyright on servers would be a bad idea?

    As me pre-response I will tell (neutrally) the good sides and then you will say the bad sides.
    1. It creates a new job/improves a job by making it possible for them to sell a ship multiple times without competition (the kind of competition you'd have with 2 parties selling the exact same book, the only thing the customer has to look at is the price) instead, they have quality versus price competition.
    2. It makes infiltrating a faction to steal designs a lot harder/impossible. Why would someone steal a ship? not for innovation or technology (at least, most of the time) but for finding the weak spots. If you know where the (e.g.) aux reactors are located, you can aim for those spots and be way more effective.
    3. It promotes continuous development. Imagine 2 factions with exactly the same ships, they will need to rely on skill and skill only (something I do like actually) but that is risky. To assure victory, faction A will improve their ships. Because of that, faction B is forced to innovate or lose the war. Pretty much like how the cold war made the weapon arsenal of both USA and soviet union grow gigantically. Or how many innovations were made in and just after the war.

    Don't forget, it would just be optional.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    pheeeew that became a bit heated in the middle didn't it?

    Well, as it seems that Jojomo is the only person (I saw in my 50% scoop reading) opposed to the idea of copyright.
    because of the fact that the last 4 pages became a bit messy, personal and more about winning an argument (or so it seemed);
    Could you state the solid arguments why optional copyright on servers would be a bad idea?

    As me pre-response I will tell (neutrally) the good sides and then you will say the bad sides.
    1. It creates a new job/improves a job by making it possible for them to sell a ship multiple times without competition (the kind of competition you'd have with 2 parties selling the exact same book, the only thing the customer has to look at is the price) instead, they have quality versus price competition.
    2. It makes infiltrating a faction to steal designs a lot harder/impossible. Why would someone steal a ship? not for innovation or technology (at least, most of the time) but for finding the weak spots. If you know where the (e.g.) aux reactors are located, you can aim for those spots and be way more effective.
    3. It promotes continuous development. Imagine 2 factions with exactly the same ships, they will need to rely on skill and skill only (something I do like actually) but that is risky. To assure victory, faction A will improve their ships. Because of that, faction B is forced to innovate or lose the war. Pretty much like how the cold war made the weapon arsenal of both USA and soviet union grow gigantically. Or how many innovations were made in and just after the war.

    Don't forget, it would just be optional.
    I really hope you don't mean that I was the one getting personal HolyCookie. I've had a huge number of negative comments about me (as opposed to my argument) made in this thread, but I've refrained from making a single personal comment in return.

    I wasn't the only one who felt this way, my first post was liked, and I assume that there must also be others who agree with me but aren't willing to risk an onslaught of abuse for simply expressing an opposing opinion.

    I'll summarise my position here:

    1. Lack of DRM is not the reason the dream of getting rich while designing ships is going unrealised. The reason is:
    • Count the number of individuals who have logged onto your sever in the last month.
    • Subtract any who are in a faction that won't like buying from you, or that you won't sell to.
    • Subract anyone who spends all their time far away from the location of your station.
    • Subract anyone who doesn't know about you.
    • Subtract anyone who doesn't like your designs.
    • Subract anyone who has a more powerful ship than your current design.
    • Subtract anyone (friends, faction members?) who you might allow to use your design for free.
    • Subtract anyone who prefers building their own ships to buying them.
    • Subtract anyone who can't afford your ship.
    • Divide this number by the number of competitors you have (other designers selling competing designs).
    • Multiply this number by a reasonable rate (even ideal customers aren't all going to buy your ship), say for example 20%.
    • This final number, X, is statistically the number times you might reasonably be able to sell this design even if it were impossible to copy it.
    Have a look at X. Have a think about X. Small, isn't it?

    X is the reason you don't sell heaps of ships and get rich. Lack of DRM has nothing to do with it.


    2. DRM will introduce negative side effects.
    • For-profit designers will have their income streams (such as they are) from old designs protected. This means they'll hvae less pressure to innovate new designs to create more desire for people to buy from them. This won't have a tangible effect on every designer, and those that it does affect won't be affected all the time, but overall it will have an effect: innovation in this specific area will slow.
    • The penetration of a particular design among the population will slow (obviously). Espionage will be harder. As a result of these effects, arms races between opposing factions (a faction develops a new ship to counter their enemy's latest design) will also slow down. Arms races are a huge drivers of innovation (see WWI , WWII, and the Cold War). A slowdown of arms races means a slowdown of innovation.
      • If the reduction in penetration is very small, then there was really no need for DRM in the first place as it had very little effect.

    3. To run a profitable business as a designer you need to:

    • Create a business model that works in the marketplace. Some possible examples:
      • Innovate/create new designs continuously to stay ahead of the pack. Anyone who copies your design soon has an outdated model. (See mobile phones as an example of this in practice)
      • Offer customised, expensive builds as a service. The owner of a custom ship won't share it, and if they do it's not your problem. This is how 95+% of commercial ships get designed in real life.
      • Sell to factions at a higher price rather than to individuals. Factions are richer than individuals and both parties know they are likely build a design multiple times. This means you can reasonably ask a much higher price. As with custom ships, a faction won't want a design spread around.
      • EDIT: If iwere designing for profit, I would sell with extremely low margins. Perhaps 105% of material cost, to better compete with players building their own ships.
     
    Last edited:

    Lecic

    Convicted Lancake Abuser
    Joined
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages
    5,107
    Reaction score
    1,228
    • Thinking Positive Gold
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 11
    1. Lack of DRM is not the reason the dream of getting rich while designing ships is going unrealised. The reason is:
    • Count the number of individuals who have logged onto your sever in the last month.
    • Subtract any who are in a faction that won't like buying from you, or that you won't sell to.
    • Subract anyone who spends all their time far away from the location of your station.
    • Subract anyone who doesn't know about you.
    • Subtract anyone who doesn't like your designs.
    • Subract anyone who has a more powerful ship than your current design.
    • Subtract anyone (friends, faction members?) who you might allow to use your design for free.
    • Subtract anyone who prefers building their own ships to buying them.
    • Subtract anyone who can't afford your ship.
    • Divide this number by the number of competitors you have (other designers selling competing designs).
    • Multiply this number by a reasonable rate (even ideal customers aren't all going to buy your ship), say for example 20%.
    • This final number, X, is statitistically the number times you might reasonably be able to sell this design even if it were impossible to copy it.
    Have a look at X. Have a think about X.

    X is the reason you don't sell heaps of ships and get rich. Lack of DRM has nothing to do with it.


    2. DRM will introduce negative side effects.
    • For-profit designers will have their income streams (such as they are) from old designs protected. This means they'll hvae less pressure to innovate new designs to create more desire for people to buy from them. This won't have a tangible effect on every designer, and those that it does affect won't be affected all the time, but overall it will have an effect: innovation in this specific area will slow.
    • The penetration of a particular design among the population will slow (obviously). Espionage will be harder. As a result of these effects, arms races between opposing factions (a faction develops a new ship to counter their enemy's latest design) will also slow down. Arms races are a huge drivers of innovation (see WWI , WWII, and the Cold War). A slowdown of arms races means a slowdown of innovation.
      • If the reduction in penetration is very small, then there was really no need for DRM in the first place as it had very little effect.
    Again, this is not a DRM issue. Ships, within the game, are physical objects. Ship blueprints need to be protected in the same way that you can't just steal patents and copywriten material for your own designs. There's no real way for a community to produce COMMUNITY LAWS and make that illegal AND expect people to follow it, so we have to turn to the developers to help.

    You'll notice that no one sells ships in game currently. Why is this? Because you have absolutely no way to prevent someone from purchasing your design once and then no one else on the server ever buying it from you ever again. """X""" is not the reason no one can get rich off selling ships. Lack of protection means no one tries in the first place because it'd be a foolish endeavor. You either get one or two maximum sales, or you have to sell things at a loss, in which case, what the fuck is the point?

    As for your negatives, they are just flat out WRONG. Sure, if there's only a single designer in a niche selling designs, they have FEWER reasons to make new ships, yes, but they still have plenty of reasons to do so. New models allow you to sell a similar design to the same niche multiple times. The same thing happens in the cell phone industry- Apple comes out with a new model every year that almost all of their regulars will buy. This works great in the US. However, you'll notice that in China, where patent and copywrite laws might as well be non-existent, they have a harder time selling their phones. Why is this? Because of all the cheaper knockoffs. This is pretty bad for Apple. Now imagine if those cheaper knockoffs were 100% identical. Now, also imagine that everyone who purchases an iPhone can also easily gather the raw materials to make one and put it together on their own. Apple would be completely driven out of China. This is the current situation for selling ships in Starmade- a race to the bottom with no repeat customers for lost or damaged products either.
    Beyond improving to sell more within your niche, there's also the possibility of two designers competing for the same niche. Let's say they're both AI Corvette designers. They will be in an arms race to improve their products and gather as many faction military contracts as possible with or without a designer protection system, except now, they'll be able to sell the same design to the same faction multiple times instead of just once and then the faction taking over, and the competitors won't be able to make perfect copies with a lower profit margin to completely wipe out the competition. What you are proposing is that we keep the same bullshit "race to the bottom, no repeat customers" that we currently have to stops nearly all ship selling in its tracks.

    As for factions- HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
    Are you even in a faction, dude? This is not even remotely true. Most factions or players homebrew their own stuff and often accidentally stumble across the same ideas. The biggest example I can think of was the infamous X-Drive, a logic drive that allowed you to instantly charge and jump, regardless of inhibitors. Multiple people produced working models completely on their own. Arms races between factions will ABSOLUTELY NOT slow down, because blueprints are already hard to steal and the arms race comes primarily from learning about an enemy ship from COMBAT WITH IT and designing a counter to it.

    3. To run a profitable business as a designer you need to:

    • Create a business model that works in the marketplace. Some possible examples:
      • Innovate/create new designs continuously to stay ahead of the pack. Anyone who copies your design soon has an outdated model. (See mobile phones as an example of this in practice)
      • Offer customised, expensive builds as a service. The owner of a custom ship won't share it, and if they do it's not your problem. This is how 95+% of commercial ships get designed in real life.
      • Sell to factions at a higher price rather than to individuals. Factions are richer than individuals and both parties know they are likely build a design multiple times. This means you can reasonably ask a much higher price. As with custom ships, a faction won't want a design spread around.
      • Lower your price to compete with people who prefer to build their own ships. In the position of a for-profit designer, my personal strategy would be to sell designs at 60-70% of the material cost of building it. This would represent a very significant savings for potential customers (much cheaper than mining themselves), which would be extremely attractive to many players I assume. And although 1 sale would mean a loss for me, 2 sales would mean a profit.
    • Innovating to stay ahead of the competition is still necessary in a designer friendly world. I would argue it is MORE necessary since you can't just perfectly steal a design to sell for a lower price. You would need to actually design something yourself.
    • Being able to sell a locked generic model does not require customized models to stop being sold.
    • Yes, you can have a faction commission you for a design at a massive price. Or you could also produce a design for a faction and not have to worry about them just taking the design for themselves.
    • Either you're suggesting you sell a completed ship for 70% of its materials cost, in which case you're losing money no matter how many sales you make, or you're suggesting just selling an unfilled blueprint of the ship to people, in which case, I have to ask- why the hell would people who prefer to build their own ships buy that?
     

    Lukwan

    Human
    Joined
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages
    691
    Reaction score
    254
    Jojomo

    1) Straw-man argument. You focus entirely on the assumption that designers want to get rich and have said nothing about the security of clever-ideas that has been a theme among builders who support a little copy-protection. This kinda amounts to 'look at my shiny X-formula' which in public speaking would be considered a grocery list.

    2) Again with the profits. This might come as a shock but every creative person I know considers 'pressure to produce' antithetical to creativity. Increasing pressure is a negative effect itself so why do we want to increase it...in a game. Then you advocate increasing the speed of the arms race like that was a good thing. Lets just skip to end of that book and read the last page: " Upon discovery of the meta-game-Uber-design everybody stops building new ships and just uses it because it kills". I know the arms race is leading there, I just don't know why we should be in such a hurry to arrive.

    3) Business advice. Get on that innovation treadmill you lazy buns. Sell high and don't worry about your patron re-selling your designs. Screw your best clients by gouging them...they're factions they deserve it. Sell low and eat cat food so the masses will buy your trinkets. Kind of all over the map in this business seminar.

    Speaking for myself I have a turret design that I sold to a friend on a server. I only sold it to him because I trusted him not to share it without giving me credit (not credits). I have since posted that turret and a dozen other builds on the dock. They are filled with all my best secrets & they are mostly obsolete by now. Creative people are asking Schine to help them retain credit so that they can share more freely. I am not Bogarting my ships, I am passing them around (and not getting paid btw). Are you sharing your builds?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dr. Whammy
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I'm not going to read that wall of text, Lecic, sorry. I'll respond to the first sentence/line in each paragraph.

    Again, this is not a DRM issue. Ships, within the game, are physical objects.
    Yes, but they also exist as digital media in the real world, and the implications of that can't be escaped. Again, this is an absolutely perfect example of DRM.

    You'll notice that no one sells ships in game currently. Why is this? Because you have absolutely no way to prevent someone from purchasing your design once and then no one else on the server ever buying it from you ever again. """X""" is not the reason no one can get rich off selling ships. Lack of protection means no one tries in the first place because it'd be a foolish endeavor. You either get one or two maximum sales, or you have to sell things at a loss, in which case, what the fuck is the point?
    The number X means DRM can't solve the problem.
    You can sell more than once on a server (assuming X is greater than 1), see my third section. You can also use a business model that doesn't need to sell more than once.

    As for your negatives, they are just flat out WRONG.
    Which part?
    Do "financial" pressures drive for-profit designers to design? Obviously yes.
    Will that pressure be greater or less if sales of old designs are protected? Obviously greater.
    Will that pressure translate into a slower rate of design? For some designers some of the time, yes - so overall yes.

    Do arms races drive the need for new designs? Yes, as people opposed to my argument have pointed out in this thread.
    Will DRM slow the spread of designs through the community? Yes, it's one of the reasons DRM is being asked for.
    If it takes longer for a faction to convert its fleet to a new design (it has to buy each ship individually), will it extend the time its enemy can wait before it requires a new design in response? Obviously. Therefore the rate of design slows.

    As for factions- HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
    Are you even in a faction, dude? This is not even remotely true.
    No idea what isn't true as you haven't quoted specifically.

    • Innovating to stay ahead of the competition is still necessary in a designer friendly world. I would argue it is MORE necessary since you can't just perfectly steal a design to sell for a lower price. You would need to actually design something yourself.
    • Being able to sell a locked generic model does not require customized models to stop being sold.
    • Yes, you can have a faction commission you for a design at a massive price. Or you could also produce a design for a faction and not have to worry about them just taking the design for themselves.
    • Either you're suggesting you sell a completed ship for 70% of its materials cost, in which case you're losing money no matter how many sales you make, or you're suggesting just selling an unfilled blueprint of the ship to people, in which case, I have to ask- why the hell would people who prefer to build their own ships buy that?
    • If no-one can copy designs old designs have a longer shelf life. They can be sold for longer (good for designers). There's less need for a designer to create a new design.
    • Of course not.
    • Not seeing the point here.
    • Yes, apologies, not thinking straight there. Edited the post.
    [doublepost=1475135020,1475134127][/doublepost]
    Jojomo

    1) Straw-man argument. You focus entirely on the assumption that designers want to get rich and have said nothing about the security of clever-ideas that has been a theme among builders who support a little copy-protection. This kinda amounts to 'look at my shiny X-formula' which in public speaking would be considered a grocery list.
    Yes I do focus on designers who want to make a profit. It's a theme in almost every post people arguing against me have written

    2) Again with the profits. This might come as a shock but every creative person I know considers 'pressure to produce' antithetical to creativity. Increasing pressure is a negative effect itself so why do we want to increase it...in a game.
    Yes, again. As above, you can see variations of "What's the point of selling if I can't keep selling" in almost every post (besides mine) for the last few pages. If you want to talk about designers who aren't interested in profits you're in the wrong argument, but my simple advice would be: don't sell your design. Problem solved.

    Then you advocate increasing the speed of the arms race like that was a good thing. Lets just skip to end of that book and read the last page: " Upon discovery of the meta-game-Uber-design everybody stops building new ships and just uses it because it kills". I know the arms race is leading there, I just don't know why we should be in such a hurry to arrive.
    No I don't. I advocate not slowing it down.
    Assuming the SM system is well designed, there is no perfect ship design. Instead you get a situation like paper-scissors-rock where all designs have a counter design, ad infinitum.

    3) Business advice. Get on that innovation treadmill you lazy buns. Sell high and don't worry about your patron re-selling your designs. Screw your best clients by gouging them...they're factions they deserve it. Sell low and eat cat food so the masses will buy your trinkets. Kind of all over the map in this business seminar.
    People keep asking how they can make a profit without DRM. Happy to oblige with some possible suggestions.

    Speaking for myself I have a turret design that I sold to a friend on a server. I only sold it to him because I trusted him not to share it without giving me credit (not credits). I have since posted that turret and a dozen other builds on the dock. They are filled with all my best secrets & they are mostly obsolete by now. Creative people are asking Schine to help them retain credit so that they can share more freely. I am not Bogarting my ships, I am passing them around (and not getting paid btw). Are you sharing your builds?
    I beg your pardon? You want DRM so you can share more freely? There's nothing right now to prevent you sharing with anyone and everyone.
    I don't fully understand your point here, but if you want more people to have access to your designs, DRM is going to work against your goal.
    When my current design is finish absolutely I will share it. The first thing I'll do will be to post it, and every other future design.
     
    Last edited:

    Calhoun

    Part-time God
    Joined
    May 26, 2015
    Messages
    872
    Reaction score
    237
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Thinking Positive
    Jojomo do you know what DRM stands for? It's Digital Rights Management.

    Considering that ships in this game are NOT digital goods, I suggest you find a different term.

    As for the suggestion itself, I fail to see how your arguments improve the game. That's the point of this right? To get a better game. This suggestion will enhance the economy, add a new player role or job, and build player relations. In my opinion, this far outweighs the lost option of easily copying someones design.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    Jojomo do you know what DRM stands for? It's Digital Rights Management.

    Considering that ships in this game are NOT digital goods, I suggest you find a different term.
    I urge you to reconsider that sentence. It's an oxymoron.

    As for the suggestion itself, I fail to see how your arguments improve the game. That's the point of this right? To get a better game. This suggestion will enhance the economy, add a new player role or job, and build player relations. In my opinion, this far outweighs the lost option of easily copying someones design.
    My arguments are not intended to improve the game they're intended to point out how ship DRM would have a negative impact on the game.

    No, the point of this suggestion is to make the game better for designers who want to sell designs (which I agree it does). It doesn't consider how it affects the game as a whole.
    Even with DRM designers won't be able to supply themselves with a steady income. You need very large numbers of players on a server to sustain that.
    A new job/role can only be added when someone realises they need to tailor their business model to the marketplace, instead of trying to tailor the marketplace to their business (which is what this suggestion does).

    It may improve the feelings of designers towards customers, but it will have the opposite effect on the feelings of (some) customers towards ship vendors. So no, I definitely don't agree it will build player relations.

    DRM doesn't enhance economies. People spend the same amount of disposable income regardless - DRM just affects what they spend it on. I'd expect to see art imitate life here, and see no improvement in the economy because of DRM.
     

    Calhoun

    Part-time God
    Joined
    May 26, 2015
    Messages
    872
    Reaction score
    237
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    • Thinking Positive
    My arguments are not intended to improve the game they're intended to point out how ship DRM would have a negative impact on the game.

    No, the point of this suggestion is to make the game better for designers who want to sell designs (which I agree it does). It doesn't consider how it affects the game as a whole.
    Even with DRM designers won't be able to supply themselves with a steady income. You need very large numbers of players on a server to sustain that.
    A new job/role can only be added when someone realises they need to tailor their business model to the marketplace, instead of trying to tailor the marketplace to their business (which is what this suggestion does).

    It may improve the feelings of designers towards customers, but it will have the opposite effect on the feelings of (some) customers towards ship vendors. So no, I definitely don't agree it will build player relations.

    DRM doesn't enhance economies. People spend the same amount of disposable income regardless - DRM just affects what they spend it on. I'd expect to see art imitate life here, and see no improvement in the economy because of DRM.
    Considering you're just repeating the same thing and ignoring everyone else's replies, I'm not going to continue this.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dr. Whammy
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages
    256
    Reaction score
    73
    I urge you to reconsider that sentence. It's an oxymoron.



    My arguments are not intended to improve the game they're intended to point out how ship DRM would have a negative impact on the game.

    No, the point of this suggestion is to make the game better for designers who want to sell designs (which I agree it does). It doesn't consider how it affects the game as a whole.
    Even with DRM designers won't be able to supply themselves with a steady income. You need very large numbers of players on a server to sustain that.
    A new job/role can only be added when someone realises they need to tailor their business model to the marketplace, instead of trying to tailor the marketplace to their business (which is what this suggestion does).

    It may improve the feelings of designers towards customers, but it will have the opposite effect on the feelings of (some) customers towards ship vendors. So no, I definitely don't agree it will build player relations.

    DRM doesn't enhance economies. People spend the same amount of disposable income regardless - DRM just affects what they spend it on. I'd expect to see art imitate life here, and see no improvement in the economy because of DRM.
    Spewing the same crap on every thread. Not once have you been able to show how this would hurt the game in any shape or way.

    The current state of affairs for the game and what we want changed.

    Player A spends months designing a new ship. Player A completes the ship and sells a copy to Player B. Player B then BP's said ship and builds them himself. Player A has now lost his ship design in the first sale.

    Since you like bringing the real world into it so much, what company would be able to survive with those conditions? Futhermore, what company would be fine with that and want to continue selling?

    Take a look at the USG and military procurement cycle, since this is more akin to this and not DRM. They pour billions into the development cycle of the F-35. When completed you won't see them building their own jets, they will be purchasing them. Why is that? There are logistical, educational, and legal constraints that are not present in the game universe.

    You keep trying to interject the real world into the game, they are 2 vastly different universes.
     

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,789
    Reaction score
    1,723
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    I urge you to reconsider that sentence. It's an oxymoron.
    Actually it's not. Calhoun is indeed accurate in saying that our ships are not digital material. They are the culmination of the knowledge and experience of a creative mind as well as its ability to problem solve, and generate aesthetics. These things are neither tangible nor digital. They are represented by a digital image of a ship but understood (even if only subconsciously) as much more than 'just a ship'. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion since everyone would be flying death cubes.

    My arguments are not intended to improve the game they're intended to point out how ship DRM would have a negative impact on the game.

    No, the point of this suggestion is to make the game better for designers who want to sell designs (which I agree it does). It doesn't consider how it affects the game as a whole.
    Even with DRM designers won't be able to supply themselves with a steady income. You need very large numbers of players on a server to sustain that.
    A new job/role can only be added when someone realises they need to tailor their business model to the marketplace, instead of trying to tailor the marketplace to their business (which is what this suggestion does).

    It may improve the feelings of designers towards customers, but it will have the opposite effect on the feelings of (some) customers towards ship vendors. So no, I definitely don't agree it will build player relations.

    DRM doesn't enhance economies. People spend the same amount of disposable income regardless - DRM just affects what they spend it on. I'd expect to see art imitate life here, and see no improvement in the economy because of DRM.
    While I commend you for giving a more in depth explanation of your point of views, you still...

    a) lack an accurate understanding of the strategies, motivations and tendencies of other players, with regard to ship design, building, trading, accreditation and sales.

    b) are mistaking this game for a real world business and mistaking the players as aspiring entrepreneurs and corporate executives.

    Here's an idea; instead of taking the arrogant approach; which is telling us what we are going to do (when you are neither us nor a mind reader), why don't you try asking us what our motivations and strategies are with regard to this idea we are bouncing around?


    You'll find that the 'abuse' and 'personal' responses you've been allegedly been receiving will start to go away and you will be part of an actual discussion rather than an endless argument.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages
    190
    Reaction score
    80
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    One thing to consider is bugs.

    If some bug or other prevents saving the blueprint on a server to either server catalog or local, then currently an admin can save the sector, give the export to the afflicted player/faction that owns the base and ship, and then in single player the ship can be saved from the imported sector. If the original blueprint got corrupted, the player or admin can f1+f8 into the ship, save it on the spot, and replace the corrupted file. Under the proposal, the ship can not be saved in either scenario, unless it is implemented to allow server admins to bypass/ignore the copy protection.

    On the other hand, allowing server admins to ignore the new feature opens the door for admin abuse, but at that point the issue is a server/administration issue rather than a game issue.
     
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages
    256
    Reaction score
    73
    One thing to consider is bugs.

    If some bug or other prevents saving the blueprint on a server to either server catalog or local, then currently an admin can save the sector, give the export to the afflicted player/faction that owns the base and ship, and then in single player the ship can be saved from the imported sector. If the original blueprint got corrupted, the player or admin can f1+f8 into the ship, save it on the spot, and replace the corrupted file. Under the proposal, the ship can not be saved in either scenario, unless it is implemented to allow server admins to bypass/ignore the copy protection.

    On the other hand, allowing server admins to ignore the new feature opens the door for admin abuse, but at that point the issue is a server/administration issue rather than a game issue.
    This should be easily mitigated by the fact that the original owner will always be able to re-upload the bp into the server. All this would do is give the original owner the option to block others from making bp's of the ships he spawns in to trade or sell.
     

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,789
    Reaction score
    1,723
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    I think he's referring to builds that aren't spawned in but rather created on a multi-player server. A structure built in this manner could be lost in case of a bug/crash/server reset. I wouldn't mind letting admins have this ability IF they do not abuse it.

    How do you guys feel about an access code that you can enter when saving a blueprint, combined with the following options?


    You build a ship/station/structure, and when saving the bluprint, at which time you select one of these three options.

    - Create "original blueprint" which allows full repair, copy, editing etc. Basically full ownership of the design.
    - Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying or repair. You have to go to the manufacturer for service.
    - Create "licensed blueprint" used for spawning a single entity and allowing other shipyards to repair it. Copying is not permitted.


    If you select 'blueprint copy' or 'licensed blueprint' you will be prompted to enter a code then which saves the blue print with the desired protection level and also applies this protection to the structure you've just saved. The protection will take effect when you exit the structure. Re-entering the core/build block of this same structure then attempting to save a blueprint from it will prompt you to enter the code which will bypass the copy protection for as long as you occupy the structure.

    For "blueprint originals", no code is entered. This would be useful for less complex builds that you either don't care about copyrighting or are too tedious to want to encode. Examples; small drones, power armor, point defense turrets, decorative components, etc.


    All assigned protection levels persists within the blueprint files themselves so you can give someone a structure and its code so that they can have access to it. ...or to remove protection completely from a structure, re-save your it as an 'original blueprint'.


    This system would keep copy protection in the hands of the creator without making it unnecessarily restrictive.


    Your thoughts?
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Lukwan

    sayerulz

    Identifies as a T-34
    Joined
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages
    616
    Reaction score
    179
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    Jojomo, your entire argument hinges on the idea that people currently use your business model of selling a blueprint once and then building another, and would stop doing that if this were implemented. They don't. No one does that. I have to wonder if you actually have every built a real ship. I make bad ships and it can take weeks.

    It's not worth it.
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    Request:
    Add mechanic to prevent wholesale copying of entities, settable when spawning.

    Currently:
    PlayerA sells a ship to PlayerB. At any time PlayerB could create blueprint of the ship purchased from PlayerA, and duplicate, and sell to PlayerC, PlayerD, etc... This undercuts PlayerA's time & energy, providing PlayerA with a reduced incentive to invest into designing/building/selling/repairing ships.

    Result of proposed:
    PlayerA sells entity to PlayerB (either directly or through distributors). PlayerA must manufacturer and distribute additional entities of the same design.

    Suggested Method:
    Add "AllowCopy" boolean flag to ship core (or ship entity), and perhaps also station entity. Entity flag can be set either by admin (anytime) or by player (only when spawning).
    if AllowCopy=false
    Deny saving blueprint.
    Deny shipyard "Create blueprint from design"
    Deny shipyard "Deconstruct to design"

    Rationale:
    Some of us are farmers, miners, explorers or fighters, others prefer to design and build.

    To support a player-run economy, help players preserve/enforce rights over their in-game designs, and therefore further incentivize builders/traders to invest time and energy into their preferred in-game activities of selling/building/repairing such designs.

    Successful economies do not allow for duplication of someone else's work to sell as your own, without first getting the original designer's permission. Right now, there is no effective in-game mechanic to limit easy duplication of another's design.

    Defects/Workarounds:
    This suggestion is not intended to prevent anyone from repairing their purchased entity, copying an entity block-by-block, or utilizing templates to copy/paste large chunks at a time. What this mechanic would accomplish though, is discouraging what is currently VERY easy/quick design duplication.
    This is an interesting concept. On the one hand, I can see how this would promote blueprint merchants, which would be very good. But on the other hand, I can see a lot of problems here because ships take damage very easily in StarMade. The game might be too arcade style for this to work well. In my experience, almost every time I have an encounter with another player, my ship gets damaged (I don't pick easy targets). If I can't repair it in a shipyard or by breaking it down and respawning it in a blueprint, I'd really rather not buy other people's ships. The time investment to have to bring it back to the person who sold it to me every time it's damaged (or do manual repairs), may very well not be worth it. Also what if the person who sold me the ship is no longer on the server? Will I be doomed to doing manual repairs on that ship? Then there are other considerations involved. What if the server I'm on is having a reset, so they give time to players to "save your blueprints." Then that ship is lost forever to me. Or.. what if the server is going through a reset and is allowing people to save a sector export or their inventory? Upon the new world starting, all the metadata on the ship would become invalid, probably allowing it to be blueprinted.

    So, with these questions in mind, perhaps here are a few possible solutions:
    1. Introduce "repair only" designs for the shipyard. A ship with a signature could only be used in a shipyard for repairs. If you make a design for it, then that design can only be used to repair that specific ship or ship-type. These designs may be modified by the player, but can only be applied to that class of ship. So, for example, let's say player A sells five "Bomber fighter" designs to player B. Player B then parks one of these bombers in their shipyard and makes some changes to it. Then they save a repair design of it. This player cannot make new ships with their design, but they CAN apply the design to "repair" all the other bombers they purchased to modify them as well or simply for repairs. This design, however, will NOT work with any other ship, except those bombers. If the player buys more bombers from the merchant, they can then modify those as well with the design. These designs, however, would need to be able to survive server resets.

    2. Alternatively, allow ships with signatures to be broken down into a design that can only be used to create 1 new ship. So a ship with a signature can still be broken down for it's parts, but only a one-time use design is created. Later on, the player can create a new ship with it, but the design is used up in the process. This ALSO needs to be able to survive world resets, preserving the unique signature, as well as class of ship. So if player's file is kept and they start with the same inventory in a new world, that one-time use design needs to be able to work to produce a ship. Then subsequent repair designs would also still work for the same class ship to do repairs.

    Now how the devs would contain this information in a player's file or entity file (where the design might be stored in a storage), I don't know, but I think it'd be doable.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages
    256
    Reaction score
    73
    I think he's referring to builds that aren't spawned in but rather created on a multi-player server. A structure built in this manner could be lost in case of a bug/crash/server reset. I wouldn't mind letting admins have this ability IF they do not abuse it.

    How do you guys feel about an access code that you can enter when saving a blueprint, combined with the following options?


    You build a ship/station/structure, and when saving the bluprint, at which time you select one of these three options.

    - Create "original blueprint" which allows full repair, copy, editing etc. Basically full ownership of the design.
    - Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying or repair. You have to go to the manufacturer for service.
    - Create "licensed blueprint" used for spawning a single entity and allowing other shipyards to repair it. Copying is not permitted.


    If you select 'blueprint copy' or 'licensed blueprint' you will be prompted to enter a code then which saves the blue print with the desired protection level and also applies this protection to the structure you've just saved. The protection will take effect when you exit the structure. Re-entering the core/build block of this same structure then attempting to save a blueprint from it will prompt you to enter the code which will bypass the copy protection for as long as you occupy the structure.

    For "blueprint originals", no code is entered. This would be useful for less complex builds that you either don't care about copyrighting or are too tedious to want to encode. Examples; small drones, power armor, point defense turrets, decorative components, etc.


    All assigned protection levels persists within the blueprint files themselves so you can give someone a structure and its code so that they can have access to it. ...or to remove protection completely from a structure, re-save your it as an 'original blueprint'.


    This system would keep copy protection in the hands of the creator without making it unnecessarily restrictive.


    You thoughts?
    I get what he was saying, in the original post Erth stated adding an option when spawning the BP to have an option of copying it. We could either have the same option when spawning a core. Or because you were spawning a core and thus creating a new ship the option wouldn't even be available as it only limits ships spawned from BPs.