Or read mine above.
1st - polls aren’t created by HWS, they are created by community looking to give feedback. Changing who posts it doesn’t change what happened. That’s like calling for a re-count on an already finished vote.
2nd - The counter argument presented in favor of keeping the current system is that by removing this feature we are removing the rights of the player, what about the rights of the factions involved? But I see now that I was referring to my own post, not someone elses. Regardless of words, the point was made.
3rd If you recreate my SV, and it’s over 70% the same as the original blueprints, its illegal. You can make a hull and then fit it with different systems, that’s not hard, but realize that it’s fairly obvious what you did. Rules like anything can be circumvented but just having it in place increases overall community security and non-toxicity.
4th - semantics.
5th It’s not pointless if there’s this much support in favor of regulating it. Just because you haven’t done it nor intend to, doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue.
@TacoIsland
If it wasn’t an issue we wouldn’t have to make such arguments, unfortunately when chivalry fails, rules are needed.
2 Likes
Come on fellas, this is becoming a little bit circular.
@Rabid Nothing wrong with having a forum post on this, in fact it’s better as it can lead to a wider discussion. I don’t play anymore therefore i’m not really one way or another, however I do believe that discussion of rules is a good thing. It’s one thing that has helped iron things out in the past.
Moreover having a forum thread with the discussion allows us to quickly link it and get other interested parties involved, as you correctly mentioned this only has a small number of voices, but that could widen with the promotion of this thread as a pluralistic space for multiple points of view.
Ergo, attempting to shut it down in the name of not representing the complete community is premature.
Chief engineer struggled with the timing of the polls, and to me polls aren’t really what’ll decide the outcome but voices.
With referendums such as Brexit as an outcome, I’m very suspicious of people being able to vote WITHOUT justifying themselves, i think too much is lost in discussion that is not had in polls and surveys, whereas our forefathers discussed and argued all the time, they didn’t necessarily vote on the issues but used rhetoric. Both have their own problems, but in this case i’d prefer decisions to be made through our points than through the will of ‘the masses’ so to speak.
Nonetheless a poll is good to see generally where the people are at in their attitude, it’ll be interesting to see if this view is reflected in the wider community.
Now finally, we can stop arguing about polls and get on to the point at hand, the legality of selling claimed BPs and the difficulties of enforcement.
Selling Captured BPs
This is interesting as discussion about this started when Chief accidentally scared Paxxo about selling RED PVP ships, on learning this I immediately spoke to Chief and it turned out that there had been a misunderstanding, no RED ships were sold, I spoke to Paxxo, the issue was resolved.
Now there used to be a PVP ‘Golden Age’ in about 5.0 where SWP (Russian fac prior to RED) and PKA (me) would settle disputes internally, and sort it out amongst ourselves, after 5.0 and after SWP with RED and OPG this became increasingly difficult and more issues had to be exhaustively settled by the Admin.
Nonetheless strangely enough @Paxxo1985 and I came an agreement on this that both sides would not sell one-another’s ships, it is good to see this kind of co-operation working again. And I hope it continues so Rexxus’ time can be wasted less often.
This leads me to my next point, the difficulties of enforcement.
It ultimately adds another layer of oversight to a server admin that is one of the sole individuals responsible for policing the server, now that doesn’t damage the legitimacy of the rule itself, but it does make the practicalities behind it more troublesome.
For this reason it should fall under a specific ‘Convention’, perhaps not quite a set-in-stone rule, but something that is widely frowned upon and if proven will be punished, but that’s just my two cents.
Time to get back to the real world and do some studying ahah.
Best regards all, and a happy new year.
Wise.
Previous thread about this which the issue was raised can be found here: Pvp ships
2 Likes
when you spawn your bp into hws a unique server, you are spawning a unique bp you never used anywhere else, you are adding and displaying capturable content to the server.
Does not seem right that those particular unique captured ships should not be allowed selling like regular ships, you are adding content to the server by bringing your ship here and you want to wave it around in front of people, look at what ive got, why should they not be allowed to take it and sell it. It is a realistic method, instead players want the ability to magically control the fate of their vessel after they have been killed and someone else now owns it. Sorry but this is utter crap.
If you dont want your designs being used by others, dont bring them here.
You cant bring content to a server that allows people to claim your content and say that this can only ever be for me, this is special because i made it so it cant be sold? screw that secret design policy, like in real world designs are only secret until they are captured, and like in real world you should make a new design…
2 Likes
Honestly rex you will have to create a hws equivelant of the united nations to enforce any non selling of clan blueprints.
edit:
I would agree that you should get perhaps a limited amount of time to sell a captured blueprint.
After which your only option is to use it keep it stored somewhere or dismantle it.
Even then, players could sell them under the table, that would need policing no doubt.
Perhaps players could have the option to trade that ship in for rp points, they may be less likely to sell it or keep it as a trophy ?
Seems to me that rp points are very sought after in hws by the pro’s.
Not really much else I can contribute to this topic.
There is too much grey areas around the whole topic.
And it seems this is all in aid of protecting secret designs which cannot even be done in the real world lol so yeah.
Do what you gotta do, I am here for the long haul regardless 
Like starting 2 new polls because you did not like the results of the 1st one?
Your missing my point. Its an unenforceable rule that would just create a ton of work for the Rex/Jas/Police. You expect an admin to go through block by block to find that it is more than X% different? What if two ships both ended up very similar by random happening? Does one design get outlawed? It’s lots of work for no benefit
No, those words have a different connotation the way you “quoted” me
And chivalry? If you want to have an honest discussion here keep the white knighting out of it
1 Like
To address TacoIsland’s claim that I advertized the ships to humiliate:
Wrong wrong wrong. The ship is advertized as captured intact - I want my buyers to know that the ships hasnt just been re-armored, its actually the ship its supposed to be with all the parts intact.
I drop the names of the factions I stole them from to give due credit to their origins as best I know, because I dont want to represent those ships as my original work, and I want the buyers to know that the ships were actually seen as good ships by the factions that made them
Hence why I advertize that it is their Main faction SV for the season I captured it from.
No hate, no salt, no disrespect.
.
1st - The 2 other polls where created by Chief, the 2nd poll still went in the same direction as the 3rd. Regardless, I was not involved in the 1st and 2nd, so why would this be an issue?
2nd - It’s not a lot of work to visually look at two screenshots of identical ships, or near identical ships. As suggested above the onus would be on the factions to provide evidence.
3rd - You have yet to provide anything new to this argument, except demonstrating your obsession with the usage of certain words. White knighting is not at all what I am doing, I was presenting an argument and for you to dismiss it out of hand just because it used a word you don’t like is just garbage.
Doesn’t matter what you intend, it’s not an honor and it’s not interpreted that way. PVP groups don’t ever do things out of the kindness of their hearts, there’s always a motive or benefit to them, and publicity is certainly a side-effect.
2 Likes
Just chiming in with my 2 cents here. I voted to have the whole system removed. I don’t think it adds anything to the game except to create more drama and toxicity. Yes, smack talk is part of PVP but hanging things like a captured ship over your enemies head is just asking to start drama. Losing a ship in PVP and having it captured is one thing, having it put up for sale to anyone who wants to buy it is another all together. It’s intentionally rubbing salt in the wound as it were. Especially if the ship were lost due to being vastly outnumbered or you got disconnected which happens frequently. Now the counter-argument that some have proposed is “Just don’t take it into PVP” to which I respond with, That’s not promoting PVP at all nor is it promoting a healthy PVP atmosphere on the server. It only servers to discourage players from even bothering which is, in turn, going to decrease total PVP on the server. So throwing that argument out there is basically a statement saying, I don’t care if there’s PVP or not. I just want to kill people and have them get salty at me for it.
All that out of the way, if the selling of blueprints is still allowed my proposal is that the seller will alert an admin or one of the moderators or police that they have a ship that they wish to sell. The police/mod/admin will make a post on the forum that X ship is going up for sale along with screenshots of the ship and of the P menu so that the original creators name is clearly displayed. The user/creator of the ship then have 3 days to dispute the sale of the ship and provide proof of ownership. If there is no dispute filed or no proof of ownership given after 3 days then the ship will go up for sale.
Acceptable proof of ownership should be:
-A screenshot of the ships ID number on HWS (either in game or Connect) from the perspective of the user/creator
-A copy of the BP given to the Police/Staff/Admin for review from the user/creator
If proper proof of ownership is given and the owner/creater/user does not wish their BP to be sold the ship will then be deleted.
Again Zackey your lack of imagination is making this very hard.
Lets say I want to copy and sell your ship. I only have to add a block of plastic to it of a size exceeding 30%/70% of the block count. Now it is within your proposed rules to sell. You cant enforce that.
And for the last time, it’s not semantics if your straight up misquote me. You had words in quotes that I did not type. Thats not semantics or obsession with words, its you misquoting me. There is a quote feature that can stop this in the future, I suggest you use it.
White knighting is 100% what your doing. You don’t even PVP, you have no horse in this race, but you try to champion a cause you are attempting to make the “good” cause. But its all subjective. Your trying to take my in game freedom away, I see that as wrong.
And yes, when you start talking about your video game “Rights”, its absolutely ridiculous. Its a video game. Rights in the real world? A real issue.
2 Likes
Also, I think I addressed all your points, I did not “dismiss it out of hand”
Stop trying to take the sky from me Zackey, just let me be free. Open world sandbox pvpve. Not single player happy funtime farm where no one ever loses.
1 Like
Thanks for this extremely enlightening point, please proceed. /s
Ah, a point has been made,
The current anti-faction thief blueprint ratio of 70% is based on similarity, like a plagiarism check, it’s enforced quite well and compares hulls to hulls for these similarities, adding blocks or increasing the count does nothing to eliminate this.
The onus, as previously discussed, would be on the factions to prove these similarities before any further checks are made.
An op4 blueprint is an op4 blueprint whether or not you put a 3k chunk of plastic blocks on it.
Rexxxus & the playerbase isn’t dumb, if you have to change the hull by that much just to sell it, really, you can’t claim it’s original and thus the problem resolves itself.
I’ve been a pvp player since season 6.0. Now, I actually engaged in pvp during this patch, but not against you. But of course, if it isn’t against you, it must not exist.
Saying I have no horse in this race is frankly insulting and you should know better. (also consider that a pve player should have as much say in this as anyone)
I’m not trying to “take your game freedom away” I’m trying to increase player freedom by allowing designs to remain within the sphere of influence, that being yourself and your enemies, instead of worrying about it spreading like wildfire. This increases designer freedom and decreases toxicity on the server by:
A: Reducing the likelihood that salt/toxic behavior is created by selling glorified war trophies from 3 + months ago
B: Reducing the possibility that factions who have no prior experience in pvp adding to this cycle by purchasing and using these vehicles.
C: By giving factions and their designers some more rights in protecting their designs (referred to as intellectual property by rexxxus, at times) and hopefully preventing some public leaks from HWS.
D: Increasing and promoting more “fearless” PVP in which newer players aren’t afraid to get pillaged and have their blueprints stolen and sold. Many PVE players take great pride in their visually appealing ships, so having them more protected might encourage them to move towards more pvp, alot of these players did speak about that concern during the previous couple of topics.
E: By encouraging innovation through lack of concern for the latest tech to be sold.
The easier it is to both get into pvp and to not have to worry about losing your stuff to the rest of the server, the better it will be for everyone.
This implies that Empyrion and by extension HWS is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things that rights of players and discussions about rules are so ridiculous so as to be dismissed out of hand.
In your opinion, the rights of these creators from designers of PVE ships to creators of PVP tech are forfeit as soon as they enter pvp.
In my opinion the line does not end just because someone shot at you. As a video game, it should be open and inviting to everyone. It should be fair and equal on all accounts, and it shouldn’t be a toxic waste dump every-time someone logs in.
This started out as a simple suggestion to reduce toxicity on HWS NA/EU, what it turned into is a complex and protracted tug of war between yourself and myself. You have a vested interest to keep this current system, so do I in removing it. But in the debate somewhere along the lines we got lost in semantics and bogged down in personal feelings instead of fact, I implore you, let this topic rest and allow rexxxus to consider both sides of this argument.
1 Like
It kind of heavies my heart to see a few folks asking RexXxus to try and regulate something that can’t possibly be regulated, and really for no good reason.
Is there a performance bonus to the server or more time to work on features if you’re doing inspections all day every day?
You’re asking for a rule to protect your feelings not your intellectual property. There are already strict rules on IP of blueprints and Steam publishing. No one here is, or has any intention of breaking those rules that I can see. They are just selling ships in game.
I see re-sold ships as content that are maybe more attainable for a starter player than say a garage ship. They add a different kind of economy option to the game based on user created content which just helps to add to the diversity of the HWS universe.
3 Likes
So my main point was still not addressed properly, hence I don’t see a common sense result out of this discussion, I’m afraid.
Because things like this:
Is exactly what I said that I will not do.
“If over 70%” … includes already that I have to determine what the other 30% is and overall do a comparison which is insane. Not mention it again, that a human is possible to recreate others work easily with some time.
Checking now tons of “work in progress” blueprints until the final blueprint which got stolen is also an insane time sink.
And that I police faction griefers is also only done partially if very good proofs can be mentioned and an actuall incident happened.
Back to the point: nobody wants that an overall good feature is disabled but nobody can tell me a good way, how to deal with such incidents properly, without making it a lot overhead, to the already overhead Empyrion creates for me either.
And again: even if we remove our chatbot sell feature, players can do it still under the table.
The Poll statistically just shows mainly ABN vs. TAW.
Few players on both side are not in an alliance with them and just stepped in here for their opinion.
So beside that fact, I would rather see a proper PvP between these two big factions and less word battles in Discord or the Forum please.
Bottom line / Statement
Nobody can show me a proper way to administrate this topic. And since it is such a deep and unclear grey area in so many ways, it is at least at the moment not something we can afford in our spare time, while fixing stuff or helping others.
Only compromise I can offer in respect of the community poll:
@Jascha might invest time to code a check, that each faction can sell only one ship at the same time globally (also prevents spam ship sales as done before)
The common sense list:
- Disconnects can happen to everyone
- Do not bring “special” blueprints into a fight, if you fear it could be captured. Capturing stuff in PvP is a common logical nature. Always keep this in mind or just stay out of PvP all together.
- Everything what stays in HWS is part of the HWS gameplay, selling captured ships included
- Regarding “Intellectual Property”: if someone can proof his / her blueprint got published in the workshop or used on another server or somehow shared outside of the HWS servers, the distributor get banned from all HWS servers.
Otherwise you lose your “Intellectual Property” once you decided for 2.) and accepted 3.)
I really care about the community and their gameplay as seen for example here
But in certain ways I also have to rethink my role and how much I interfere in your gameplay, especially if it’s just too hard to administrate. Especially now with the Alpha 9 frustration and all the missing ideas and features for HWS, I want to spend more time in improving HWS for everyone than making it a full time job of administrating ingame stuff and private messages.
RexXxuS
9 Likes
when I first came to this server it was made very clear to me:
use it; be prepared to loose it.
3 Likes
Admittedly, I have no horse in this race as I’ve not played for 2 seasons, but I’m dropping an opinion because I can.
The idea that people want HWS to inspect ships for up to 70% similarity is absolutely absurd… Spend 30 seconds thinking about what that would entail compared to what they are already having to do, and you should reach the conclusion that it is physically impossible to enforce such a rule. Creating a rule that can’t be enforced at all = super mega drama whenever the rule is inevitably broken.
All this essentially because people’s feelings are hurt because their ships are being sold? I mean, maybe I’m missing something here, but is that the best explanation you have for this proposed rule implementation - “I’m insulted that you’re selling my ship that you captured fairly”?
Toxicity =/= you being whiny about losing a fair battle, nor is it when someone sells a ship they captured fairly for whatever reason they want to… Some people here are confusing toxicity with straight up whining to get their way… If you can’t come up with a better reason to create an unenforceable law (or a way to enforce it) than “I don’t like when this happens”, maybe you shouldn’t be playing a game this cutthroat…
1 Like
Enough salt in this topic.
I think you like my compromise and I will tell Jascha about it.
4 Likes