Read by Council Hinder design theft

    Lukwan

    Human
    Joined
    Oct 30, 2015
    Messages
    691
    Reaction score
    254
    Quite frankly, if you can't trust a server admin, you really shouldn't be there.
    I agree. Logging onto a server I expect to have no secrets from the admin. Every BP I create on that server is already being stored locally and the server has access to them, so...I could not be any more exposed. I accept this implicitly. I choose a server carefully and my choice is informed by trust. My potential customers are whole different story. I choose my server, I trust their choices about assigning admin privileges but the player-base is a motley crew that I have no control over.
    [doublepost=1475265898,1475265596][/doublepost]
    No player should ever be unable to save their own ship.
    I learned the hard way when my old server had to 're-start' that you must always save a local copy of your WIP on your own computer. If you maintain that habit you will be fine.
     
    Last edited:

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,792
    Reaction score
    1,731
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    I like the idea of permanently tying a player's name and/or SMD/Registry account to blueprints. Also, I would prefer to disallow the use of templates from ships protected in this manner. Because (Dangerous territory, I know) no computer manufacturer ever pulled somebody else's motherboard out of a computer and used an identical design in another computer. The point being, of course, that allowing users to pull 10x10x10 or even 50x50x50 chunks out of ships and copy them, while tedious, is much worse than what I'd like to see: Forced block-by-block copying. Why? Because you can't just jump into a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier and learn everything about it. You have to pull it apart piece by piece, in a tedious and lengthy process, before learning all of its secrets.
    OR, you do the smart thing, where you investigate only those systems superior to those, and then figure out how to use them to improve your OWN carriers/powerplants/radios/etc.
    Outright template banning seems a bit extreme. But if you mean, "can't copy a chunk from a protected ship", then I have no problem with this. After all, a "licensed blueprint" will have copy protection turned off. The same could apply to template restrictions

    Also, admins have access to all BPs now. That might as well continue to prevent the sort of player abuse of intentionally laggy designs that is occasionally seen.
    Valid concerns. Although, admins would still have the ability to delete any maliciously-purposed lag generating entities as well as the ability to access the blueprint database. They just may not be able to actively spawn the protected ships in or save them for later.

    No player should ever be unable to save their own ship. If they've set it to protected, let them save it regardless. It should be protected from others, not the designer.
    I agree with this but we may have to make a concession for it. It may very well come down to 'how bad do you want this protection?' Hence why I mentioned 'risk' in an earlier post.
     
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages
    1,362
    Reaction score
    268
    Yeah, but I'm referencing the idea that appears, to me, to be floating around---that a protected blueprint should not be ID'd to a person so much as made un-saveable.

    I mean that you should be unable to copy a chunk of a protected ship. If you can save the whole thing anyway, why bother disallowing templates? And if you can just use templates, it makes the protection a lot less valuable.

    No point in restricting admins. As noted, if they really wanted to screw with your stuff, they'd just mess with some files and be done with it.

    No point to add risk to a logical system. See if anybody has real objection first.
     

    Erth Paradine

    Server Admln & Bug Reporter
    Joined
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages
    239
    Reaction score
    58
    I like the idea of permanently tying a player's name and/or SMD/Registry account to blueprints. Also, I would prefer to disallow the use of templates from ships protected in this manner
    ...
    Mixed feelings here... How about meeting in the middle on this: deny template "copy", but permit template "paste" on protected designs. Denying paste would hinder bulk modifications/enhancements. As for bulk copying of a protected design...well, at some point the player should probably spawn their own and start a truly unique build.

    ...
    No player should ever be unable to save their own ship. If they've set it to protected, let them save it regardless. It should be protected from others, not the designer.
    In other words, if spawner = modifier, ignore value of "AllowCopy" and permit save to BP/design.

    That seems fair to me, although admins can get around that...admin trust really is a separate issue though.
     
    Last edited:

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,792
    Reaction score
    1,731
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    Yeah, but I'm referencing the idea that appears, to me, to be floating around---that a protected blueprint should not be ID'd to a person so much as made un-saveable.

    I mean that you should be unable to copy a chunk of a protected ship. If you can save the whole thing anyway, why bother disallowing templates? And if you can just use templates, it makes the protection a lot less valuable.

    No point in restricting admins. As noted, if they really wanted to screw with your stuff, they'd just mess with some files and be done with it.

    No point to add risk to a logical system. See if anybody has real objection first.
    You've convinced me.

    Admin rights should stay. If you run into a crappy admin, get off the server and find a good one.
     

    Gasboy

    BLRP
    Joined
    Aug 11, 2013
    Messages
    1,311
    Reaction score
    360
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    • Purchased!
    You've convinced me.

    Admin rights should stay. If you run into a crappy admin, get off the server and find a good one.
    And then you've left designs that can be exploited. If you do not care, why protect the designs in the first place?

    Preventing an admin from spawning a blueprint doesn't prevent them from removing or adding the blueprint to the catalogue.

    And you may never know if an admin has copied your stuff. But may find that (RP server for example) that enemies suddenly know your ships in and out.

    Protecting your IP should apply to everyone.

    However, perhaps a toggle to allow admin certain leeway when necessary?
     

    Erth Paradine

    Server Admln & Bug Reporter
    Joined
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages
    239
    Reaction score
    58
    And then you've left designs that can be exploited. If you do not care, why protect the designs in the first place?

    Preventing an admin from spawning a blueprint doesn't prevent them from removing or adding the blueprint to the catalogue.

    And you may never know if an admin has copied your stuff. But may find that (RP server for example) that enemies suddenly know your ships in and out.

    Protecting your IP should apply to everyone.

    However, perhaps a toggle to allow admin certain leeway when necessary?
    These are the ways in which an admin can steal a design (there are others, this is just an offhand list), without you ever knowing:
    • Existing command: /change_sector_copy
    • Existing command: /change_sector_for_copy
    • Administratively entering structure (including any structure its docked to) and saving a BP of it, or undocking said ship, flying it to a shipyard, saving the design, and then returning the ship when completed.
    • Exporting the sector, and re-importing it either in single-player or another hosted server.
    • Restore a copy of the server DB elsewhere, and manipulate to their heart's content (this includes modification of various player and entity identification and permission settings).
    • Direct SQL command injection; bypassing game mechanics, and granting admins the permission anyways.
    • Manually copy raw entity files into a single player instance, or another hosted server.
    • Logging in as the player while they're offline, and then doing whatever that player can do (could be done w/ a copy of the server DB too).
    None of the above steps requires access to another player's blueprints or designs, nor would any player have any knowledge of any event.

    You have a trust issue with admins, I think we all get that by now (I encourage you to check the links in my signature for various simpler ways to address such issues). Although the intent of the original proposal was never intended to address admin vs player trust issues...in those situations, I could go either way on this topic, although I am inclined towards:
    ...Admin rights should stay. If you run into a crappy admin, get off the server and find a good one.
     

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,792
    Reaction score
    1,731
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    And then you've left designs that can be exploited. If you do not care, why protect the designs in the first place?

    Preventing an admin from spawning a blueprint doesn't prevent them from removing or adding the blueprint to the catalogue.

    And you may never know if an admin has copied your stuff. But may find that (RP server for example) that enemies suddenly know your ships in and out.

    Protecting your IP should apply to everyone.

    However, perhaps a toggle to allow admin certain leeway when necessary?
    A line needs to be drawn. The function of a server admin is to administer the server. As an IT professional who deals with similar issues on a regular basis, I cannot in good conscience support making an admin's job any harder than it already is; not for a video game. To do so would be hypocritical on my part. I figure, if an admin can't separate his/her responsibilities from their own personal interests, word WILL get out and those servers will lose players; both existing and prospective. I've seen it before and we will see it again.

    The main concern is not admins; it's crooked/mean-spirited players. So let's go back to the original idea, my 3 options and the codes I mentioned. With these functions in place, admins can still spawn or add/subtract to and from the catalog. However, no one said we had to give admins the ability to alter the protection state (forget about the software hacking genius arguments for a sec and just bear with me...). Let's say a ship ends up on the catalog, under this protection, other players still can't spawn it or save it to local. Only an admin of that server would be able to do so and if that happens, you may just have a crooked admin on your hands. Leave that server and vote their asses down for their dishonesty.

    Let's say an admin wants to be a total jerk and post your builds to CC. We could add the original creator's info into the build data itself; as was mentioned earlier. That way, the moderators of this forum can take it down upon the original designer's request and keep a lookout for the corrupt admin. This is a community of creativity so I doubt he'll last long as an admin with that kind of rep.

    In all honesty, while I am protective of my designs, most of my stuff isn't at an "OMG, gotta have it" level of greatness. I'm not particularly concerned that an admin would choose to steal my stuff. I'm more worried about the players who get into wars with everyone, then come hover over my base and practically beg me to give/sell them ships... And if I need total secrecy, I just don't load it to the server.

    After all, I don't necessarily want this thing getting out... At least not yet...;)
    100x test 2.gif



     
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages
    1,362
    Reaction score
    268
    I've not been clear---you should be allowed to modify the ship out of all proportion. Do as you wish! But you should not be able to simply copy sections of the ship (Or the whole thing) without the owner's permission. To use another one of these dangerous examples:

    The owner can give you the manual, and you can know the item inside and out nearly instantly (Minus reading time).

    But if you don't get the manual, well, time for some disassembly. It's gonna take a while.
     
    Joined
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages
    758
    Reaction score
    129
    I've not been clear---you should be allowed to modify the ship out of all proportion. Do as you wish! But you should not be able to simply copy sections of the ship (Or the whole thing) without the owner's permission. To use another one of these dangerous examples:

    The owner can give you the manual, and you can know the item inside and out nearly instantly (Minus reading time).

    But if you don't get the manual, well, time for some disassembly. It's gonna take a while.
    The OP, as it's written ( I realise the OP has also commented on this more recently) specifically states that the suggestion is not intended to stop copy/pasting to templates.

    As soon as you stop copy/paste, you go back to the same situation I've been posting about for the last week or whatever it is: you'll slow down arms races, which are by definition a major source of innovation/new designs.

    For anyone selling designs, this also reduces potential demand for new designs: if it now takes a faction a month to upgrade its fleet instead of a week (for example, not intended to be accurate time frames), its enemy is only going to need 6 new counter-designs per year instead of 26.

    Reverse engineering a ship (ocean) in real life doesn't require disassembly. They're large enough that you can move through them and measure and record any data needed. We sometimes reverse-engineer parts of a ship (because a shipyard may actually have built something slightly different to the design we gave them and we need to update our files to match, or an owner may ask us to make sure a new design has the same or better structural characteristics than the ship being replaced) purely from photos and notes taken inside the ship by one of our engineers.
     
    Last edited:
    Joined
    Feb 25, 2016
    Messages
    1,362
    Reaction score
    268
    Actually, Jojomo, in order to truly know every inch of a vessel, enough to duplicate it, you have to tear it down to the structure. You have to track individual rivets to be perfectly accurate. You have to rip out the walls to get at wiring, pipes, you name it, the ship has it.

    You are working from a design you already have, tracing a few modifications. What I'm trying to prevent is the large-scale copying of sections of a ship, that effectively makes innovation worthless.

    And it's just FINE if we slow down "arms races"! Especially since they should not be "Oh, they've got something better. Quick, let's go steal one using a spy in the faction!" Instead, they should take time and effort, and make it so that, instead of having a metaphorical Germany just make a copy of a stolen (Good luck) Iron Duke-class battleship, Germany takes what it has learned from indirect means, and applies it to produce a Baden-class with a few improvements compared to the original.
     

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,792
    Reaction score
    1,731
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    Yes! A true arms race with actual battle testing and not this incessant spy crap.

    Case in point; I once took a Pathfinder on a little PVP engagement against an ally. Two ships in the 8,000 mass range but different designs. My PD turrets thinned out any incoming missiles and my armor held the ship together when my shields dropped. I eventually had to concede defeat due to an inability to get a missile lock or bring down my opponent's shields with my ion cannons.
    100x Pathfider.jpg


    Within 48 hours I had upgraded the ship with
    - a +25% increase in shield capacity
    - a +10% increase in shield recharge rate
    - a +200% increase in ion beam anti-shield effectiveness (a Tri-focused ion cannon!!!)
    - extra scanners
    - reinforced armor
    - an optional... um... I mean... Absolutely Mandatory fighter squadron.
    formation-alt-jpg.26869.jpg

    With the exception of the fighters, I fit all this stuff in the same general mass and ship volume. All it cost me was a 33% reduction in missile damage; which I couldn't use anyway, due to his jammers.

    My new ship would have dropped my opponents shields in 1-2 hits; even with his passive ion reinforcements and 50 e/sec recharge rate. I would have cut him to pieces with my cannons while his swarmers and cannons just bounced off my hull.

    Showing up with this ship for a rematch would have definitely sparked an arms race; just to see who could cram more destructive crap into an 8,000-9,000 mass frigate.
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    I like the ideas, I like where it's headed.


    This is exactly the type of constructive criticism and arguments that are needed.


    Again, you completely fail to see what everyone is getting to. You seem fixated on the real world and the game universe being one in the same. As I stated previously, they are not. There are very real constraints within the real world that are not present in the game. This is why the real world operates the way it does. There is no way Microsoft would have continued to develop and sell Xbox consoles if they could only get 1 sale. If you don't like consoles the same could be stated about computer companies. If ASUS had to design and create a brand new computer after every single sale there is no way they would be able to stay profitable and in business. I feel damn well comfortable stating there is not a single company on the planet that could stay in business if they had to redesign and build new models after every single sale.

    This is why everyone is arguing against you so much and why you are taking it personal. Not once have you been able to provide a single logical reason within the context of the game on how this would hurt the game. Meanwhile we have several times over shown and prove how the current set up hurts the game.
    Yay, someone read my reply in this flurry of DRM arguments, lol.
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    But just to weigh in to the DRM battle going on.

    1. I can understand the worry about DRM, but these are players creating ships, not record labels having a near-monopoly on the music industry or large businesses stifling competitors through copy-write trolling. The feature would not be to protect large businesses, it'd be to protect individual player's control over their intellectual property.

    2. Trading blueprints is not currently viable in game, because it's too easy for that blueprint to be copied indefinitely once sold one time. Sure, selling ships doesn't have to be a part of the game. But I think it'd be more fun if we had a system that made it workable.

    3. No solution is going to be 100% perfect or fair. As it is, the prospect of selling a ship is unfair to the seller due to the complete loss of control over their intellectual property. However, if a "drm" is implemented, it will probably be considered as unfair to the buyer, because it would limit the buyer's options with a ship they now own. There is no system that will make everybody happy. But which system would result in more fun? And what sort of compromise might enable the most fairness, in respect to both the buyer and the seller? I think allowing sellers to sell, but maintain control over their intellectual property, would have a better outcome for creating an economy in StarMade, and right now, economy is sorely lacking. But I think, if implemented, the devs would need to be careful not to make it too restrictive that the owner of a ship cannot modify it or save their changes, for their own use. I think there should also be a way that the original creator of a ship could remove the tag from it. So, for instance, if a player makes extensive changes to a design, they can then go back to the seller they purchased it from and perhaps pay them a fee to remove the protection, and then they could go on to sell that modified ship themselves.

    4. A "DRM" style protection should always be voluntary. If you want to sell ships without protection on em, go right ahead, but I somehow I doubt you would if you spent 2 months on a ship design.
     
    Last edited:
    • Like
    Reactions: Calhoun

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,792
    Reaction score
    1,731
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    But just to weigh in to the DRM battle going on.

    1. I can understand the worry about DRM, but these are players creating ships, not record labels having a near-monopoly on the music industry or large businesses stifling competitors through copy-write trolling. The feature would not be to protect large businesses, it'd be to protect individual player's control over their intellectual property.

    2. Trading blueprints is not currently viable in game, because it's too easy for that blueprint to be copied indefinitely once sold one time. Sure, selling ships doesn't have to be a part of the game. But I think it'd be more fun if we had a system that made it workable.

    3. No solution is going to be 100% perfect or fair. As it is, the prospect of selling a ship is unfair to the seller. If a "drm" is implemented, it will probably be considered as unfair to the buyer, because it would limit the buyer's options with a ship they now own. But which system would result in more fun? I think allowing sellers to sell would have a better outcome for creating an economy in StarMade, and right now, economy is sorely lacking.

    4. A "DRM" style protection should always be voluntary. If you want to sell ships without protection on em, go right ahead, but I somehow I doubt you would if you spent 2 months on a ship design.
    1) Agreed...

    2) Agreed...

    3) I'd like your input on the 3 options I presented earlier; as we may already have a way around this issue. My "Licensed blueprint" and "Original blueprint" options will allow for repairs and modifications of a purchased ship. They just can't copy the blueprint to local or reproduce the ship. This is only fair since the ship transaction took place on a specific server and is not recognized on other servers. The seller doesn't benefit from any sales they made on a different server so in all fairness, the buyer shouldn't automatically get to take any ships they purchase to a different server without the designer's consent.

    4) Agreed.
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    1) Agreed...

    2) Agreed...

    3) I'd like your input on the 3 options I presented earlier; as we may already have a way around this issue. My "Licensed blueprint" and "Original blueprint" options will allow for repairs and modifications of a purchased ship. They just can't copy the blueprint to local or reproduce the ship. This is only fair since the ship transaction took place on a specific server and is not recognized on other servers. The seller doesn't benefit from any sales they made on a different server so in all fairness, the buyer shouldn't automatically get to take any ships they purchase to a different server without the designer's consent.

    4) Agreed.
    3. Which page did you present them on? (There were a ton of messages - I may have glossed over some).
     

    Dr. Whammy

    Executive Constructologist of the United Star Axis
    Joined
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages
    1,792
    Reaction score
    1,731
    • Thinking Positive
    • Likeable Gold
    • Legacy Citizen 9
    3. Which page did you present them on? (There were a ton of messages - I may have glossed over some).
    My post got burned up in the flame wars... Luckily, I saved a copy...;) This is what I've come up with so far. let me know what you think.


    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, CC upload etc. Basically full ownership of the design.

    - Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying, CC upload 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 and CC upload are 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.


    Updates

    Only admins can bypass the protection on a multi-player server for spawning/catalog management, but they cannot alter the designer's copy protection settings in-game. Players will need to trust that admins are keeping their personal interests with regard to other players' designs separate from their admin rights. Anyone else has to either get an "Original Blueprint" get the code from the creator or wait for a CC release.

    Apart from those with admin rights, "Licensed Blueprints" and "Blueprint Copies" will not persist outside of the server in which they are purchased/given. Once again; the player needs to get an "Original Blueprint", the blueprint's code or a CC build in order to be able to take the ship to another server or (re)upload it to CC.
     

    Erth Paradine

    Server Admln & Bug Reporter
    Joined
    Feb 15, 2016
    Messages
    239
    Reaction score
    58
    ...
    I think there should also be a way that the original creator of a ship could remove the tag from it. So, for instance, if a player makes extensive changes to a design, they can then go back to the seller they purchased it from and perhaps pay them a fee to remove the protection, and then they could go on to sell that modified ship themselves.
    ...
    Wow, I didn't think of an "AllowCopy" removal option being leveraged in the market. That would be nifty...and it brings up an excellent point: as a derivative work, its only fair for buyer/seller to establish a dialog, and agree upon an equitable path forward.
     

    Benevolent27

    Join the Dark Side
    Joined
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages
    585
    Reaction score
    327
    • Purchased!
    My post got burned up in the flame wars... Luckily, I saved a copy...;) This is what I've come up with so far. let me know what you think.


    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, CC upload etc. Basically full ownership of the design.

    - Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying, CC upload 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 and CC upload are 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.


    Updates

    Only admins can bypass the protection on a multi-player server for spawning/catalog management, but they cannot alter the designer's copy protection settings in-game. Players will need to trust that admins are keeping their personal interests with regard to other players' designs separate from their admin rights. Anyone else has to either get an "Original Blueprint" get the code from the creator or wait for a CC release.

    Apart from those with admin rights, "Licensed Blueprints" and "Blueprint Copies" will not persist outside of the server in which they are purchased/given. Once again; the player needs to get an "Original Blueprint", the blueprint's code or a CC build in order to be able to take the ship to another server or (re)upload it to CC.
    Thanks for finding that for me. There was a TON of burying going on there. lol

    I would not recommend the "blueprint copy" option. I don't think it's viable for players to have to rely on the seller every time they want a single block repaired. Ships are frequently damaged. I also think this would hurt the faith players have in the system and cause confusion, so players might avoid wanting to use any licensing aspects of the game at all. I can just imagine all the sellers trying to explain the difference between the "licensed" ship they are trying to sell and what a "blueprint copy" is.

    For a ship license, I say let the game handle the behind the scenes codes. No need to password protect it or have some seller forget which code they used for which blueprint and then not be able to help anyone with the designs they sold. Tie it to the registry account for the player who made the ship. Also allow the license to be given a name, that is clearly visible to all. This license would be what is used to determine the permissions on the ship. So if the seller wants players to be able to modify all of a certain type of ship with their own additions, they can. They would just name the license "Bomber Class". (As in my example). This would then allow the purchaser to modify the ship and repair to their modified ship design using a shipyard (but again, that repair ship design could ONLY be used on a ship that was purchased from the specific seller that had that specific license name, "Bomber Class." If the seller wants to assign a unique name to the license, they would just give the license for the ship they are selling a unique name, like "Bomber Class for DestroyerOfWorlds."

    Regarding admins: Admins should always have full control of everything. Permissions or otherwise. I think the worst thing that can happen is where admins cannot control their own server. If the admins on a server are untrustworthy, then believe me, that server will not last. Plus having this kind of control would allow wrappers to have creative implementations, that might use NPC factions as "sellers," ect.

    Oh, and about the blueprints not persisting outside of one server: I disagree. Just have the blueprint permissions tied to a person's starmade account. The permissions would then follow them from server to server. But purchasers, of course, would only have access to the ship they purchased on a specific server since they cannot save the blueprint to their local hard drive.

    Edit: Oh, and with the blueprint, I say don't have anyone have to make any choice when creating the blueprint. Just have an option "Add License" or "Remove License" (if one exists). When the player clicks to add their license to it, it just asks for the name of the license with an ok/cancel/help button. If they click "help," then it pops up a screen that explains licenses. I think simplicity would be key here. Also keep in mind that the license would not stop a faction-shared blueprint from being used by fellow faction members. But the resulting ship would have that unique license on it and could not be duplicated further. I feel this would be good though, because it would give people good leeway with the licenses.

    Edit 2: It also occurred to me that with things like quests and NPC factions, there might be a need for a blueprint to be licensed by an NPC or a player without any starmade registry account (such as an offline single-player game mode or a multiplayer server that does not use registry accounts - for whatever reason). The game would prefer to use starmade registry accounts for the license, but if none exists, it would simply default to the player name. And in game, or by admin commands, a blueprint might be specified to be "NPC" and a name given. If set to an NPC, that NPC would not actually have to exist.
     
    Last edited: