Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Blueprinting Disabled for Non-Owned Grids: Agree or Disagree?

Discussion in 'General' started by AceNepets, Feb 16, 2017.

?

Blueprinting Disabled for Non-Owned Grids: Agree or Disagree?

Poll closed Mar 2, 2017.
  1. Disagree / Retain Previous Behavior: Blueprint anything anywhere.

    9.3%
  2. Agree / Keep New Behavior: Only Blueprint Grids You Own

    79.6%
  3. Other: Describe solution in comments

    11.1%
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. AceNepets Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    121
    To try to be as unbiased as possible in this prompt, I'll describe the change that Keen has made, and introduce my opinion in a comment/reply.

    The previous behavior up to this point for taking blueprints (in survival) was such that you can take a Blueprint of any grid at whatever distance you can accurately point. This allowed for studying enemy creations and for immediate sharing and copying of other player's designs.

    The new behavior, as described in the update video today, describes a change to this mechanism, such that you can only take a Blueprint of a grid that your character owns. This may be intended to prevent studying an opposing player's design for weaknesses, or perhaps other reasons.

    Please cast your vote and add any comments to this change.

    [Edit 70 minutes after posting]:
    Re-watching the video and looking at @Drui 's post, this change only applies to survival worlds, and should not affect creative worlds.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  2. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    Imma gonna throw my gauntlet down for Disagree - i'm in general not a fan of removing previously possible player actions, even though this is, admittedly, a relatively minor one.

    Having said that don't be too surprised if this thread goes the way of the Ladder; it's essentially a Yes or No Poll and those aren't allowed.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  3. russo_bolado Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    613
    Although I chose "Agree", honestly I wasn't aware of this functionality until it was removed. And, as Rotal said, it's a relatively minor feature IMHO.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  4. AceNepets Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    121
    The idea of restricting the ability to Blueprint a grid depending on if the player owns it or not is something that has been debated before, and my thoughts are posted here: [Link]

    Basically, if it is visible to your character, it should be available for Blueprint. Information is the most valuable commodity in this game, far beyond the value of any material you can mine and process. The locations to enemies bases, the behaviors and patterns of other players, the way they design and protect their ships and bases; these are the only things that make this game worth playing online PvP. The ability to gather information is critical to knowing how to respond to and defend against enemies. By symmetry, being able to share designs and ideas with friends is important, otherwise the flow and freedom of creativity in this game is retarded severely.

    I agree with @Commander Rotal above, this is the way the game has always behaved, and it is very frustrating to lose prior abilities, while begging desperately for new ones that would extend and promote game-play.

    A more practical and example-based set of arguments to keep the old and known behavior:
    • On FountainCore, I've been studying the ships and bases used by other players. I've also noticed that they have been taking snapshots of my ship designs as well. I fully expect and acknowledge that my designs, if I chose to reveal them by entering into a combat zone, may be copied and studied. That is the reality of warfare: If you deploy your secret weapon, it may fall into enemy hands and not be so secret anymore, it is a risk to be balanced.
    • Also, yesterday, a faction team member asked if he could copy my Jump Tug design, and I gave him the go ahead. Despite having the blueprint for that ship on my workshop, it made way more sense for him to just take a blueprint, considering that the Workshop design is outdated and is not modified as the DS design was for the specific conditions present there.
    • Being able to plan an effective heist on an enemy base requires a good Blueprint of said base. With the blueprint pasted in a private session with other faction members, we can make full rehearsals on how to infiltrate and take over the base. By symmetry, auditing each other's designs and keeping a copy of your friend's ship designs is useful for when they are not present to spawn in a projection of their own ship when you are repairing it for them.
    I don't really see any kind of compromise that would make me happy with limiting the ability to Blueprint other player's creations:
    • Reducing the range that Blueprints can be taken at is an idea, such that to actually take one, you would have to survive getting inside the range of defending turrets. But this is invalid since there are many ways to approach an enemy base or ship without being shot, such as bailing out of a passing ship or staying behind cover and exposing safe surfaces to the character target reticle for taking the Blueprint. And this would call for a "Blueprint Range" setting for the world or server that would add to the complexity of the code base.
    • Placing this as a server or world setting/option only serves to make the game more complex, and adds to yet more complexity in the game code.
    • It would probably be more fair to make blueprints of enemies or non-owned ships "lossy", or to only have the blueprint contain all the external exposed blocks while removing anything that cannot be seen from an isotropic vector. This is probably very complex to implement, and would still allow for edge cases such as when the player taking the Blueprint is fully authorized by the owning-player to do so, such as when trading ship designs in some kind of neutral "Space Ship Show and Exhibition" on a dedicated server, where factions would possibly be set to the "War" stance but not necessarily want to fight.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
  5. russo_bolado Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    613
    Limiting is inherently bad, but if you consider this:
    Being able to copy an enemy ship via blueprint (regardless of distance), paired with ownership transfer to enemies, allows malicious players to effectively mimic enemy ships (you can even transfer the Antenna/Beacon to the enemy to make the copy passable), which will only be unmasked when reaching turret range. This can lead to serious abuse in Multiplayer.
     
  6. AceNepets Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    121
    Then why not just disable transferring ownership to enemies? Why does Blueprinting have to be disabled as well? Constructing a duplicate of an enemy ship but only being able to own it yourself seems a fair tactic, one used in real-world warfare in which one side can try to masquerade as a member of the other; .... except that here, when closing inside of turret range, things start to explode as usual.
     
  7. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    Good change.
    Blueprints can still be shared by switching ownership.
    I think if someone wants to get to know my ships weaknesses he has to conquer and gut the ship to know them.
    Ctrl+c>ctrl+v from miles away. Probably unspotted is way too easy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
  8. russo_bolado Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    613
    Because Ownership may be just the cake's cherry. You can mimic a ship and turn off its HUD Blocks (Antenna, Beacon) and you'll still pass as a copycat outside turret range. With ownership transfer, you can transfer a whole ship (except the Cockpit, otherwise you'll likely be thrown) to an enemy, plug it to a Connector and easily chug all of his/her resources you can get.

    It's fair when you have to copy by reverse-engineering. Being able to make a copy regardless of distance, and with a simple command that requires less of a second to run, is unbalanced and can lead to serious abuse.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    I also think that someone creating good warfare gear deserves even a tiny bit of copyright
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  10. Light_gemini Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    671
    Originally voted disagree but after thinking about it I must agree with Keen.

    Reasons.... Its survival. You dont magically do whatever you please like in creative.

    Without magic design copy what you need to do to adquire an enemy blueprint? You need to hack all ownership blocks and take ownership. Its way better this way (in survival) because:

    1. It requires Effort. You want it, work for it.

    2. It takes time. Wich could be important in competitive play.

    3. It may require extra gameplay. From capturing the grid, tow it to safety, provide protection, disarm traps etc. This also may require stealing, trading, or making a deal with its owner for a non combat way to adquiring a grid. Its no longer one sided.

    4. You are likely to get a damaged grid resulting in a blueprint with missing parts. This requires engineering from you to rebuild whats missing, investigate what needs to be added observing debris etc.

    5. Because of number 4, you are encouraged to take grids by boarding or other means to guarantee a grid as intact as possible.

    So in survival, yes to ownership limited blueprints, yes to ownership actually meaning something, yes to individual grids being more unique and less copied at will, and yes to forced interaction/reaction from the grid owner.
     
    • Agree Agree x 9
  11. AceNepets Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    121
    I've been reconsidering my view as I've written a response in the Change Log thread. I've changed my vote to "Other", and would like to describe my approach here.

    This is basically a complete copy-paste of my response in the other thread.

    I would like to see a middle-ground, there needs to be a risk-verses-reward interaction with taking your secret super-weapon out to a fight, but as @halipatsui states above, it makes sense that military secrets deserve some form of protection.

    Bases already may have voids and features that are incorporated into the surrounding voxel if it is a base build into an asteroid, so there is already a "lossy" protection in that regard. I submit that taking a blueprint of an enemy base in survival will "sanitize" it, such that any scripts, custom text, and most other settings are lost. If it isn't hard to code in the future, then my final bullet point in my original response about making the blueprint "lossy" such that only the outside shell is captured is also a concept I fully endorse, if it can be implemented.

    [Extended Edit]:

    To run with my above compromise, is the following an agreeable middle-ground?

    In Survival, taking blueprints of a non-owned grid results in only the non-terminal blocks being copied. Any block with an IMyTerminal Block Type is not included. This may result in the grid blueprint being split, as currently is the behavior of pasting grids with missing mods.

    With this solution, it is possible to gather intel on an enemy base in survival, but only the general layout, consisting of armor blocks and conveyor lines only. Any and all other blocks such as lights, turrets, displays, production, weapons, everything else, is excluded from the blueprint. This allows for military secrets to be retained, but also for bases to be practiced on by factions in private rehearsals. This also allows for a friend to fix another friend's ship with a lossy blueprint, providing the means to fix structural and conveyor damage but not build any computer-holding block otherwise.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    Sounds a bit hard to implement to me.
    Besides if someone wants to make a "disguise" copy they will probably be fine with camera pics from distance.


    Disanling copying also might increase blueprint value to the point of blueprints becoming a subject of trade. Good technology can well be worth a large large chunk of platinum or uranium
     
  13. russo_bolado Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    613
    It mitigates, but doesn't solve the main problem: acquiring information from miles away in a blink of an eye. IMHO, this middle-ground adds unneeded complexity for such a minor feature that was unknown to many players up to this date.

    IMHO, this is the idea of Survival in SE:
     
  14. AceNepets Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    121
    @halipatsui , I've cross-posted back in the Update thread, and tagged Drui and Rexxar in the hopes that they will chime in on if it is technically doable or not. I believe it should be quite easy, as the blueprint object can be serialized with filters while being saved as a blueprint, such that only certain blocks are recorded. Cross-post here.
     
  15. Robotnik V Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    382
    I'm just waiting for the moment when the faction system gets bugged out, it will be rather hilarious when people can't change the ownership on their own grid, or blueprint any of their creations.

    As for preventing players from blueprinting enemy bases to figure out their weaknesses. Exterior defenses are safely visible with a camera, and you can see inside the ship by grind down a block almost all the way, which usually reveals interior turrets, which then you can grind down the block they're attached to. So, this change will probably delay pirates a few minutes at most? Personally, this change feels like development time that would have been better used somewhere else.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. AceNepets Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    121
    @Robotnik V , Speaking of the faction system being bugged out, it is already really frustrating that my faction members cannot move my ship when it is set to "station". In order to improve performance, Fountain Core converts all grids to stations on each restart, and thus whoever owns a grid is the only person capable of moving it. By adding more special cases to the game, things get more and more complicated.
     
  17. halipatsui Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,253
    That might be the case in pirating, but if release version of SE is stable enough for large scale faction vs faction pvp finding weaknesses would becoe more important.

    And of course it is simply nice you dont get your stuff stolen with a press of a button.
     
  18. TheTinyMan Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    61
    I don't play PvP, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

    My thought on this would involve a very non-negligible amount of work on the part of Keen, but here it goes: a probe tool. The probe tool can 'scan' the blocks of a target that are within a certain cone or radius of the tool. Multiple probes connected by antennae could work together to build a blueprint, and a control panel or antenna connection could be used to retrieve the current blueprint in whatever state it may be in. So what you'd probably want to do would be to shoot a bunch of PMWs or drones with this tool as the payload instead of something more damaging...or get a tiny scout ship in there to scan it.

    It does seem odd to gather settings from computer blocks like this of course - especially things like programmable blocks or timers. I'm not sure if I'd suggest that it should take more time to do that, or that some other, less convenient or more conspicuous tool could be used for that.

    I'm not 100% sure how performant this would be, and it would definitely take time to implement, but it seems like it might satisfy both sides of the argument?
     
  19. Echillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,334
    My friends and I play in survival and swap blueprints and designs and now because of possible PVP crap that's just been thrown under the bus Thanks Keen what else you gonna screw up before dropping the game?
     
  20. gchristopher Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    132
    That's really not true.

    You go to your blueprint, hit Publish, they go hit Subscribe in your workship, and it's shared! It's less than TEN MOUSE CLICKS between both of you! You don't even have to be near each other in game.
     
  21. Elfi Wolfe Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    498
    Now with inter grid communication. People are putting in passcodes in scripts. If someone can just copy the ship from survival they then know the passcode varrible from the script.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  22. Veritas Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    143
    Please note, this change supposedly only affects survival.

    In terms of helping reduce the ease with which griefers sabotage stuff, and meta-lore reasons, I understand why you can't blueprint non-owned grids. However, I feel that this system is flawed, and should be set up so that you can blueprint friendly grids, but not hostile grids. This would allow sharing of designs in survival between faction members, but prevent people from scoping out bases in creative.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  23. russo_bolado Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    613
    [...]with limited range and requiring a ship/drone (albeit basic) with a camera mounted, plus with the risk of being detected while observing. With blueprints, your range is unlimited and you only need LoS between your EVA Suit and the copied ship. You take the picture and analyze the blueprint from the safety of your base.
    [...]provided you can reach the ship without being torn by turret fire. With blueprints, you take the picture and analyze it from the safety of your base.
     
  24. Robotnik V Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    382
    Wait for the player to go offline, destroy the exterior turrets from afar with stacked gatling guns, steal ship/station. Honestly, blueprinting enemy ships was only useful for revealing medical rooms and cockpits, which then you could destroy those areas with pmws, but thankfully most players make it rather obvious where their medical rooms/cockpits are, so it won't have much of an effect. Again, this will slow piracy down by a few minutes. While disabling blueprinting enemy ships isn't a bad idea, it just doesn't add much to the game.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    Voted other.

    Server toggle.

    That said, I do like it, since it lets you keep some control over your own designs. As a hobbyist designer myself and someone with training in engineering (no degree) I am wary of copycats, so it gives me some peace of mind in MP.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  26. russo_bolado Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    613
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. rexxar Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,530
    I didn't just come up with this idea on my own, removing blueprint access like this was heavily requested by players, as it was basically an exploit. Same with the ownership thing, I patched an exploit that was letting players cheat in PvP. We all know our PvP is not the best in the world, and removing exploits that cheapen it even further is definitely worthwhile.

    Point is, taking a blueprint of an enemy ship in survival has very, very limited legit use, everything else is just cheating.
     
    • Agree Agree x 9
  28. hellokeith Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    335
    @rexxar @Malware Do programs within programmable blocks remain on ownership change? I was under the impression if the PB gets hacked (ground down and then repaired), the program would be lost.
     
  29. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,797
    I'm staring at your base. I'm not sure of what surprises are in it if I attack it. I hit Control B and the blue print is captured. I then load your base in creative. Not only do I have your layout, I know the exact contents of your base as that is blue printed as well. I see you only have a handful of ammunition and you've left some of your turrets off. I know where every single sentry gun inside is.

    I know every single script that you're running.

    How is that "balanced" in a competitive game?
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  30. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,225
    I'd agree keep it the way it is...players can spend ages making a ship then someone can just blueprint it and stick it on the workshop claiming their own or looking for weaknesses

    but.......can a base you don't own still be grinded and re-weilded for ownership then blueprinting right?
    if you manage to take control of it without blowing it up attempting to disable all the auto-turrets.

    if not that...oh boy its going to be the starbound 1.0 toolbar all over again.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.