To write here I have to use a translator. My native language is many times more difficult than English and the translator can't cope. I'm not trying to be rude in my messages. In any case, I think it's better to speak openly than to try to "search for words" to increase the informativeness of the message
The blueprint system is killing this game
- Thread starter sedstr
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2022
- Messages
- 2
I never comment on these forums and usually just watch the community be indecisive on what it wants, but so many people are missing the point that Vexus is making that I feel I need to chime in. The SSC is great, yes, I personally have spent probably 80% of my time in it. But the point is that in an MMO, why is everyone not in the game universe? If the editor is so great, then maybe the game needs to shift its focus away from a vast MMO and into a format that makes the editor hand-in-hand with the gameplay. But that probably isn't going to happen, so something needs to change with the SSC.
I bought Starbase to have some MMO gameplay. Even when the game was fresh on steam with 10,000 concurrent players, so many people were in the SSC. The SSC is too good for the rest of the game, everyone is designing ships to fill a role that cannot be completed - simply because everyone else is in the SSC. Other than building a miner to end all miners, what is the point in building a PvP ship if everyone is too busy perfecting their own ship in the editor to be in the world to fight? We find the SSC fun because we imagine its potential in the world, but outside of the SSC there is hardly a world to realize that potential.
If we go with Vexus's suggestion and the building is in-world, it changes the gameplay loop from "Sit in designer, build epic ship, go out in yolked out mining ship, make money to afford ship, fabricate ship, sit in designer and build new ship" to "Come up with ship idea, find place to build it (a station perhaps), make the parts to build the ship with mined ore(or buy them from the shop), throw the ship together, and through its usage in the world, find how to improve it." Definitely a more interesting gameplay loop, but this isn't going to happen as the SSC isn't going away.
I have no clue how to fix this problem, as Vexus said, the SSC is already out of the bag, there's no going back. But it has infinitely more power than in-world building, and with no manufacturing time yet implemented, it will always be the superior option that people will choose to work with. Maybe when this game actually adds stuff to do outside of the SSC and players (hopefully) come back, people will change the percentage of time they are in the designer.
I don't really know how to end this other than to loop back to Vexus's point and say that yes, the SSC is great. But that isn't a good thing for Starbase. If you are spending all your time in the SSC, there is no game to Starbase other than a CAD editor.
I bought Starbase to have some MMO gameplay. Even when the game was fresh on steam with 10,000 concurrent players, so many people were in the SSC. The SSC is too good for the rest of the game, everyone is designing ships to fill a role that cannot be completed - simply because everyone else is in the SSC. Other than building a miner to end all miners, what is the point in building a PvP ship if everyone is too busy perfecting their own ship in the editor to be in the world to fight? We find the SSC fun because we imagine its potential in the world, but outside of the SSC there is hardly a world to realize that potential.
If we go with Vexus's suggestion and the building is in-world, it changes the gameplay loop from "Sit in designer, build epic ship, go out in yolked out mining ship, make money to afford ship, fabricate ship, sit in designer and build new ship" to "Come up with ship idea, find place to build it (a station perhaps), make the parts to build the ship with mined ore(or buy them from the shop), throw the ship together, and through its usage in the world, find how to improve it." Definitely a more interesting gameplay loop, but this isn't going to happen as the SSC isn't going away.
I have no clue how to fix this problem, as Vexus said, the SSC is already out of the bag, there's no going back. But it has infinitely more power than in-world building, and with no manufacturing time yet implemented, it will always be the superior option that people will choose to work with. Maybe when this game actually adds stuff to do outside of the SSC and players (hopefully) come back, people will change the percentage of time they are in the designer.
I don't really know how to end this other than to loop back to Vexus's point and say that yes, the SSC is great. But that isn't a good thing for Starbase. If you are spending all your time in the SSC, there is no game to Starbase other than a CAD editor.
The SSC was intended to be part of a construction loop, with the blueprint projectors and what not.
The current problem simply stems from the SSC being polished, with the rest of the game not being where it should be to relieve the SSC from its status as the de facto ship printer.
I even wrote it earlier, but was misunderstood
as I never said that the SSC was the best part, only took it as a scenario (personally I think having other players in voice chat trying and cooperating to achieve personal goals is the best of starbase).
Whenever something is too powerful you have two to three options: buff the rest, nerf it or maybe ignore it.
The main problem is that between blueprint and ship nothing exists. No (or very little) manufacturing and no assembly.
The secondary problem being articulated seems to be the isolation of the SSC from the rest of the game.
The first you can solve with the planned concept of constructing ships in world at a station.
And the second: maybe just showing them as active in the station with a note "In Designer" could alleviate the issue of the world seeming empty or having public design sessions beside the private and group one.
You don't need to destroy the SSC, just nerf and buff it till it sits where it is comfortable.
The current problem simply stems from the SSC being polished, with the rest of the game not being where it should be to relieve the SSC from its status as the de facto ship printer.
I even wrote it earlier, but was misunderstood
as I never said that the SSC was the best part, only took it as a scenario (personally I think having other players in voice chat trying and cooperating to achieve personal goals is the best of starbase).
Whenever something is too powerful you have two to three options: buff the rest, nerf it or maybe ignore it.
The main problem is that between blueprint and ship nothing exists. No (or very little) manufacturing and no assembly.
The secondary problem being articulated seems to be the isolation of the SSC from the rest of the game.
The first you can solve with the planned concept of constructing ships in world at a station.
And the second: maybe just showing them as active in the station with a note "In Designer" could alleviate the issue of the world seeming empty or having public design sessions beside the private and group one.
You don't need to destroy the SSC, just nerf and buff it till it sits where it is comfortable.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2022
- Messages
- 2
I agree that obviously it doesn't need to be destroyed. And yes, it is far more polished than the rest of the game. Like I said, hopefully the game gets some features that rise above the SSC so that players have a reason to not exist in the pocket universe of the editor. I do still agree with Vexus that the SSC is a bit too powerful and ruin some potential gameplay loops. But, maybe that won't feel like an issue when the game gets some more stuff.
The point "SSC removes players" from the universe is invalid:
1) it's a in-game tool, you have to launch the game in order to use it.
2) it is multi player for f-s sake
3) there is absolutely nothing wrong with a tool that is designed to build ships is better than "in-field" abilities
4) the only reason why people might think it removes players from the world is because it is currently the most polished part of the game, so naturally people tend to use it excessively until there is a game to play.
I doubt that with a "finished" game that even 10% of active players will be in the editor instead of the"game world"
On that point it would be nice if the Chat was more usable in the editor.
Also please stop lamenting stop gap measures, they are placeholders and will be replaced with actual mechanics down the line. To point out a few: ship spawning/despawing, SSC ship printing/buying, the market, the inventory etc.
Do not discuss the current situation, that's pointless.
Discuss features with the final mechanics in mind.
@pavvvel you might want to write your native language and the fact that you use the g translator into your signature.
This gives people a heads up to think about your post before jumping to conclusions. Makes things easier.
1) it's a in-game tool, you have to launch the game in order to use it.
2) it is multi player for f-s sake
3) there is absolutely nothing wrong with a tool that is designed to build ships is better than "in-field" abilities
4) the only reason why people might think it removes players from the world is because it is currently the most polished part of the game, so naturally people tend to use it excessively until there is a game to play.
I doubt that with a "finished" game that even 10% of active players will be in the editor instead of the"game world"
On that point it would be nice if the Chat was more usable in the editor.
Also please stop lamenting stop gap measures, they are placeholders and will be replaced with actual mechanics down the line. To point out a few: ship spawning/despawing, SSC ship printing/buying, the market, the inventory etc.
Do not discuss the current situation, that's pointless.
Discuss features with the final mechanics in mind.
@pavvvel you might want to write your native language and the fact that you use the g translator into your signature.
This gives people a heads up to think about your post before jumping to conclusions. Makes things easier.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 35
Your response is unnecessarily rude and I really think you need to read over the last line in your post and apply it to yourself. I've watched Vexus stream the game several times, and I know him from a previous game I used to play. I am 100% confident Vexus loves Starbase and is only speaking from a place of concern. Look at reality, the game isn't doing well is it? He is posting his opinion on why it isn't doing well, it's ok for you to disagree and make a counter-argument, but your reply here is a waste of space.
Personally I partially agree with Vexus. The SSC takes people out of the game, makes the world feel empty and makes me feel like I'm just messing around in an editor not really playing the game. I do love using the SSC, but it's not an engaging "game".
I don't want to see it removed completely but I would like to see dependencies changed so you can't just spend 100 hours in SSC and then print a ship over and over without engaging in the real-game-world for more then just mining some safezone ores and buying the rest off market.
I want to see refueling and refilling ammo removed entirely from the repair feature. There is no reason to manually manage your ship anymore which is just less gameplay. I started designing a ship the other day and realized: no need for a resource bridge, no need to be able to access my fuel rods, no need to have access to my ammo mags. I can just box everything in nice and secure and just repair to fill everything, that is pretty lame imo. Of course I don't have to make it that way, but that's what's efficient in the state of the game, who purposely goes against efficiency?
Personally I partially agree with Vexus. The SSC takes people out of the game, makes the world feel empty and makes me feel like I'm just messing around in an editor not really playing the game. I do love using the SSC, but it's not an engaging "game".
I don't want to see it removed completely but I would like to see dependencies changed so you can't just spend 100 hours in SSC and then print a ship over and over without engaging in the real-game-world for more then just mining some safezone ores and buying the rest off market.
I want to see refueling and refilling ammo removed entirely from the repair feature. There is no reason to manually manage your ship anymore which is just less gameplay. I started designing a ship the other day and realized: no need for a resource bridge, no need to be able to access my fuel rods, no need to have access to my ammo mags. I can just box everything in nice and secure and just repair to fill everything, that is pretty lame imo. Of course I don't have to make it that way, but that's what's efficient in the state of the game, who purposely goes against efficiency?
Last edited:
It's good that you can't reverse engineer the ship. The uniqueness of each ship is what's cool! This creates an additional dimension of the player's skill. I can make decisions more slowly and push buttons, but as an engineer I am much cooler and therefore I have a chance of success in battle or in carrying out any mission.
The game is not going very well, because it is very weak with the descriptive part. A lot of things have to be thought out by yourself, the wiki has not been updated since February. There are no examples. Everything is outdated there. Players come, try, they don't succeed (because they have to guess) and leave. We need more information in the wiki on the game and more examples in the wiki. This has happened more than once before my eyes.
I commented on exactly this issue last year. See: https://forum.starbasegame.com/threads/ship-shop-ships.2483/post-18888
Reposting it here, because I still stand by what I said.
I think when you buy a ship, you should gain the full rights to it. It's yours, you paid for it. Take it into the designer, update & modify it. And make all the copies you want.
If this is something the designer doesn't want; Then don't sell the ship. And don't take it outside the safe-zone if you're not willing to risk it getting captured.
Once a ship is captured, the capturer then gets the full rights to it. To do whatever they want with it. (However, the blueprint should be saved in the state it was in when captured. So if you capture half a ship, then you've only got the blueprint to half a ship.)
Look at games like Space Engineers, and Stormworks, and Empyrion, and StarMade, and Avorion... Can you imagine if those ships at the Workshop were paid? That'd be ridiculous.
Now, before you yell at me for this being an MMO. The core concept of those games are the same as here. You grind for resources, to get bigger and better ships and bases.
And those people still hours, weeks, and sometimes even months in those games creating those ships. Then why is the people who do the same in StarBase should get special treatment?
People are gonna start doing it for the incentive, and not because they love it. And it's gonna become a business. And less of a game. Just look at Second Life community vs. Skyrim community.
Second Life is so cold and heartless. And those creators aren't playing a game as much as they're running a business.
While in the Skyrim community, it's more open and helpful and welcoming.
Now, that's not saying ship designers don't deserve any rights. They absolutely do. But at some point, their liberty has to end. So ours can begin.
I am aware Starbase is supposed to have this whole ship trading economy system to it. Like "Oh you could buy that famous ship that was in that war and flown by that pilot" or whatever... Yeah... I don't really see that ever working. I can't think of any games where that is a thing.
Only other game I can think that even attempts that would be Star Citizen. But so far, they've only added the ship naming system. (Which is a whole other can of worms of a bad idea regarding how they did it. Like this whole unique name idea is utter BS.)
And even once Star Citizen is further along, I have my serious doubt it's ever going to work the way it was advertised.
I know personally, I don't give a flying carp about the history of a ship, and who flew it during what. It just doesn't work in a game where it just doesn't matter.
EVE is probably a good example for this as well; No one's gonna buy a Kestrel that was flown during the Fountain Wars for anything more than the standard buying price.
TLDR:
A ship is a ship. And once you have it, it's yours. And blueprints should only function as a repair guide. Not as a locking mechanism. And any blueprint of a ship can be saved / updated at any time in a designer if you own the ship.
So, a practical example;
You buy a ship off someone. Take it the designer, make some modifications. Save the modifications to the ship. And save a local blueprint so you can load it later.
So now, the repair guide will reflect the modifications when repairing the ship.
PS: I'm not defending the act of stealing those BPs, and selling them. But I think it was inevitable for it happen, and it's gonna happen again. Just more hidden the next time, if FB cracks down on it.
Reposting it here, because I still stand by what I said.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, I think we should do away with this type of blueprint system. The whole thing feels like it creates more problems and drama than its worth.
I think when you buy a ship, you should gain the full rights to it. It's yours, you paid for it. Take it into the designer, update & modify it. And make all the copies you want.
If this is something the designer doesn't want; Then don't sell the ship. And don't take it outside the safe-zone if you're not willing to risk it getting captured.
Once a ship is captured, the capturer then gets the full rights to it. To do whatever they want with it. (However, the blueprint should be saved in the state it was in when captured. So if you capture half a ship, then you've only got the blueprint to half a ship.)
Look at games like Space Engineers, and Stormworks, and Empyrion, and StarMade, and Avorion... Can you imagine if those ships at the Workshop were paid? That'd be ridiculous.
Now, before you yell at me for this being an MMO. The core concept of those games are the same as here. You grind for resources, to get bigger and better ships and bases.
And those people still hours, weeks, and sometimes even months in those games creating those ships. Then why is the people who do the same in StarBase should get special treatment?
People are gonna start doing it for the incentive, and not because they love it. And it's gonna become a business. And less of a game. Just look at Second Life community vs. Skyrim community.
Second Life is so cold and heartless. And those creators aren't playing a game as much as they're running a business.
While in the Skyrim community, it's more open and helpful and welcoming.
Now, that's not saying ship designers don't deserve any rights. They absolutely do. But at some point, their liberty has to end. So ours can begin.
I am aware Starbase is supposed to have this whole ship trading economy system to it. Like "Oh you could buy that famous ship that was in that war and flown by that pilot" or whatever... Yeah... I don't really see that ever working. I can't think of any games where that is a thing.
Only other game I can think that even attempts that would be Star Citizen. But so far, they've only added the ship naming system. (Which is a whole other can of worms of a bad idea regarding how they did it. Like this whole unique name idea is utter BS.)
And even once Star Citizen is further along, I have my serious doubt it's ever going to work the way it was advertised.
I know personally, I don't give a flying carp about the history of a ship, and who flew it during what. It just doesn't work in a game where it just doesn't matter.
EVE is probably a good example for this as well; No one's gonna buy a Kestrel that was flown during the Fountain Wars for anything more than the standard buying price.
TLDR:
A ship is a ship. And once you have it, it's yours. And blueprints should only function as a repair guide. Not as a locking mechanism. And any blueprint of a ship can be saved / updated at any time in a designer if you own the ship.
So, a practical example;
You buy a ship off someone. Take it the designer, make some modifications. Save the modifications to the ship. And save a local blueprint so you can load it later.
So now, the repair guide will reflect the modifications when repairing the ship.
PS: I'm not defending the act of stealing those BPs, and selling them. But I think it was inevitable for it happen, and it's gonna happen again. Just more hidden the next time, if FB cracks down on it.
When you buy a ship in SB it is yours a "physical thing", you can do whatever you want with it.
You automatically get a snapshot of its state for repairs, you can modify it to your hearts content and create a new snapshot to repair to that state.
You can disassemble it and learn from it, which will be even easier once we get the drive in designer.
You can use that knowledge to create a knockoff BP.
But why in the world do you think you have the right to get the plans for manufacturing it, when you've done zero development on it.
Sure build your own knockoff BP and sell that ship, you won't be able to copy it 100% anyways so people may notice.
Then you may have or have not a mob of angry customers but that's the risk you take if you do plagiarism.
Maybe even some factions start a war because of that.
All that is fine.
But you do not have the right to redistribute that design without the consent of the creator/author.
The same is true for any steam workshop item, or Skyrim mod.
You are allowed to use it, that's all.
BPs are not a ship, they are a manual on how to build it.
You can't treat them the same, one is an object the other is an idea.
You automatically get a snapshot of its state for repairs, you can modify it to your hearts content and create a new snapshot to repair to that state.
You can disassemble it and learn from it, which will be even easier once we get the drive in designer.
You can use that knowledge to create a knockoff BP.
But why in the world do you think you have the right to get the plans for manufacturing it, when you've done zero development on it.
Sure build your own knockoff BP and sell that ship, you won't be able to copy it 100% anyways so people may notice.
Then you may have or have not a mob of angry customers but that's the risk you take if you do plagiarism.
Maybe even some factions start a war because of that.
All that is fine.
But you do not have the right to redistribute that design without the consent of the creator/author.
The same is true for any steam workshop item, or Skyrim mod.
You are allowed to use it, that's all.
BPs are not a ship, they are a manual on how to build it.
You can't treat them the same, one is an object the other is an idea.
I don't understand what they're trying to prove here. if you think that the game world is becoming empty because the players are sitting in the editor - improve the game, but do not touch the editor. the opinion that by cropping the editor you will get more people in the game is wrong: you will get more players who have deleted the game.
I don't want to fly those terrible ships that are in hangars on Origin. I can't even look at them. I want to design my own ship and I don't care about other people's opinions. I want players who have the desire to build the most perfect ships not to be limited by any casual version of the editor. many players do not even imagine what huge opportunities there are in the editor now. the same ship can be built in different ways and it will work and fly in different ways.
leave the editor alone. This is the only playable gameplay in this game.
I don't want to fly those terrible ships that are in hangars on Origin. I can't even look at them. I want to design my own ship and I don't care about other people's opinions. I want players who have the desire to build the most perfect ships not to be limited by any casual version of the editor. many players do not even imagine what huge opportunities there are in the editor now. the same ship can be built in different ways and it will work and fly in different ways.
leave the editor alone. This is the only playable gameplay in this game.
I'm not sure that i see that the blueprint system is "killing" the game at all. The Designer is awesome IMO. I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved. For example adding the ability for the author to save an updated ship state (open world alterations) to an updated BP would be appreciated. While I haven't ruled out selling my BPs, i rather enjoy the idea that there is potential to do that, but i likely won't. Primarily because i appreciate that the ship i created is unique and stands alone in its design. I spent countless hours creating it and fly it secure in the knowledge that it is one of a kind.
I think the best method of understanding the BP ownership vs Ship ownership is to apply it to a real world scenario. You can buy a toyota tacoma truck, but that truck doesn't include wiring schematics and engineering diagrams to reproduce all of its component parts from scratch. You could purchase the wiring schematics for certain, but try precision printing the individual parts to assemble the same truck you purchased and reproduce one from scratch. You'd need to optically scan every individual part independently and create a catalogue of all the parts to have a starting chance. Then, in order to have a shot at proper function, all the gas, hydraulic and electrical conduit would need to be mapped, which would nearly require a complete tear down of the truck to, in reality, recreate a operational truck. This is a loose comparison of course. But, my point is that you certainly can own a truck, but the fact that you own it absolutely does not immediately empower an individual with the knowledge of its internal functioning nor infrastructure network that makes it operate. It would require much more intimate knowledge, research and investigation to gain even a small percentage of reproductive capability. Even then, one would discover that much of the computer engineering is proprietary software without which, the thing wouldn't even start. So, in terms of reality, ownership does not endow the possessor with any intimate knowledge beyond that which is simply on the surface. I don't see why Starbase should operate any differently.
That said, if the owner wants to sell that information, well then... there ya go!
If you want to fly a purchased ship to your station safezone and painstakingly tear it down and rebuild one side by side, you can try that as well. That would endow you with that intimate understanding to go into the designer and build your own BP copy to mass produce at your leisure.
I think the best method of understanding the BP ownership vs Ship ownership is to apply it to a real world scenario. You can buy a toyota tacoma truck, but that truck doesn't include wiring schematics and engineering diagrams to reproduce all of its component parts from scratch. You could purchase the wiring schematics for certain, but try precision printing the individual parts to assemble the same truck you purchased and reproduce one from scratch. You'd need to optically scan every individual part independently and create a catalogue of all the parts to have a starting chance. Then, in order to have a shot at proper function, all the gas, hydraulic and electrical conduit would need to be mapped, which would nearly require a complete tear down of the truck to, in reality, recreate a operational truck. This is a loose comparison of course. But, my point is that you certainly can own a truck, but the fact that you own it absolutely does not immediately empower an individual with the knowledge of its internal functioning nor infrastructure network that makes it operate. It would require much more intimate knowledge, research and investigation to gain even a small percentage of reproductive capability. Even then, one would discover that much of the computer engineering is proprietary software without which, the thing wouldn't even start. So, in terms of reality, ownership does not endow the possessor with any intimate knowledge beyond that which is simply on the surface. I don't see why Starbase should operate any differently.
That said, if the owner wants to sell that information, well then... there ya go!
If you want to fly a purchased ship to your station safezone and painstakingly tear it down and rebuild one side by side, you can try that as well. That would endow you with that intimate understanding to go into the designer and build your own BP copy to mass produce at your leisure.