MAKING it illegal to sell blue print with out the permission from the owner

support

#41

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.


#42

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.


#43

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.


#44

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:

  1. Disconnects can happen to everyone
  2. 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.
  3. Everything what stays in HWS is part of the HWS gameplay, selling captured ships included
  4. 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


#45

when I first came to this server it was made very clear to me:
use it; be prepared to loose it.


#46

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…


#48

Enough salt in this topic.

I think you like my compromise and I will tell Jascha about it.


#49