Jump to content

[Discuss] Dev Blog: The New DRM System


NQ-Naunet
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, DarkAster said:

Whats with that price tag to create blueprints. 125000 quanta seems excessive. When will you learn? When will you learn.... that your actions have consequences?

125k for L cores isn't that bad. It's only 25k for M size and 5k for S. By the time you print L size ships, you really shouldn't be hung up on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, this is the most important missing feature:

  • We need a way for a creator to be able to transfer their “creatorship” to another player/org.

Not only that, but there should be an RDMS flag for editing DRM protected Lua on a construct.  Our use case is that we have a number of Lua developers in our org who work collaboratively on a ships code.  With the current state, and proposed solutions, we'd need to make every developer a legate, or remove DRM altogether in order to work the way we have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it ! We need know a DRM system for Lua libraries. 
We need to be able to install a lib on library slots of controlers, which could be protected by a DRM.

Allowing us to sell or give technologies protected, and useable to create custom sytems / APIs ...etc based on created technologies.

For example, to install games on existing construct, or install a navigation system on existing construct, or install technologies with API made by the reator to interact with it ...etc


I'm really waiting for  it ! But it's a good first step ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The customisation of various HUDs in ships or industry monitoring tools could be a collection of scripts from multiple authors so that player would want to install several scripts what they can currently do but not anymore with the current RDM system.

For Lua it would be interesting to allow player to buy Lua BluePrints that can be added to controllers like schematics to industry units.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be more easier to erase content of screen or controller without replace it , for example quick text and quick svg will be enable even on DRM screen , we have a lot of screens with information like "screw" , "coal" ..... and some with svg made by me based on logo of your guild  , why have you DRM them without demand to us ?

 

Well i disagree DRM in real life , not even as customer but also as creator and i disagree in game

As creator i don't want DRM on my creation , i understand for others but you complicated life of anothers

 

And yes RDMS will be enable writing for organization if they want , not only legate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that drm is not a bad idea, but like all your recent implemented ideas they lack on previous mechanics that let your implementations unbalanced and unfair for some players.
 

in this case of drm you lack on the posibility on not being able to copy paste voxel.... and what happen if you purchased the ship and it get attacked and you want to repair the hole. or in case of the pirate they succesfully destroy ship core and want to bring their trophy home and want to repair that holes?

 

yeah, is so easy to answer: use the voxel tools but if they want to keep the shape of the ship?
yeah, you gonna answer: use the repair unit... but you need a blue print stored into it to repair ships... and if the ship is key purchased? what happen later?

my solution opinion is already done by other game: starbase, they have a manual repair tool that can be implemented for voxel destruction to not need a bp to repair the destroyed hull
https://youtu.be/GuZGcVkdiww?t=134

 

PD: if you are not NQ-staff and don't like my opinions just give yours and don't replay my post with your smartness plz im fed up of that smart people that think they know all and only their opinions are the good ones. ty and salut!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These changes make sense but we have already been encumbered with the change in place. Additionally, some people have bought constructs from people who have quit playing. What are those players to do? 

 

TBH - the critical error with the DRM rollout is that it should only affect new blueprints. Retroactively implementing the RDM change effectively broke every contract between seller and buyer where all transactions were based off the open nature of prior blue prints. Sellers (still playing) must now run around fixing permissions, or buyers are having to tear down their constructs just to update the LUA (as an example). This is why everything should have been left as-is and new DRM rules only affect future blueprints and transactions.  The old rules were already factored into cost and every deal because those were the rules by which people were playing. This has been a headache for everyone.

 

I get and totally appreciate the direction of recent changes. The problem is with how the changes have been executed. Effective change management is a real, and critical activity in everything we do - including games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarkAster said:

Whats with that price tag to create blueprints. 125000 quanta seems excessive. When will you learn? When will you learn.... that your actions have consequences?

I agree very excessive , a tax ok but not depends on size core ,1000 quantas is enough, maybe 5000 but not anymore

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

however, you have  a relatively hidden (because relatively dangerous) right-click menu option in “Construct/Advanced/Create Core Blueprint without right protection” 

Not so relatively hidden anymore :D .. 

 

Good first attempts but quite frankly control elements and screen should not be DRM protected by default as most wil contain public data and currently you have remove and replace elements (undo) to gain access and load updated scripts or make adjustments to scripts which are not owned by the creator in the first place. If they use custom/owned scripts then sure, but then then should set this flag manually on the relevant elements instead. Problem here is that links will also be removed in this process which can be a bit of a pain.

Another problem starts when an element has once been destroyed and restored as you use the dynamic properties to keep track of the restore count and use your (NQ's)option to lock the properties to not lose that count. This means that if I need to update an element which was restored at least once, the only option I have is to actually scrap that part and place a new one in it's place which seems to be ..well.. not intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My seat should NOT be protected by default... It is my choice to put a different LUA script on the seat.
My controllers in the ship should not be protected by default...

 

I can pick up to tell it to wipe drm protections of the item but when I put it back down it still doesn't let me edit the LUA..... that's dumb.

If I put a new controller in the ship to control something new... it won't let me edit the LUA.... that's dumb.

 

Yet something else in the game that just killed the economy because I won't buy ships from anyone now because I can't customize a ship to my liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff!

  • We need a way for a creator to be able to transfer their “creatorship” to another player/org.

As a creator you should be able to rightclick on the core of the construct and produce a 'proof of creatorship' which can be transferred to another person or organisation.

What still needs to be answered is the question: if you transfer creatorship, will you (the original creator) still be creator or will that right/privilege be removed when he passes the 'contract of creatorship'?

 

Possible answer:

  1. we need to be able to share creatorship, let's say we call this 'share of creatorship'
  2. and we need to be able to full transfer creatorship, let's call that 'testament of creatorship'

Just my two cents...

 

As for initial privs/flags... I think everything should be protected by default. If you don't want protection, take it off. We cannot have it the other way because people who really need protection can forget to activate it and that could be a disaster for a ship designer. Taking DRM off, should be easy for all four elements: core, honeycomb, controller and screens. Just right click on construct / advanced / remove DRM and then the question "are you surely sure sure to take it off?" and then I think we're on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't understand why NQ spend precious resources and development time on these features that concern barely a few percents of the player base and add only complexity and new bugs.

It's like industries, you claim it's for 10%  of the player base but so far it has consumed way more than 10% of the development effort…

 

Spend the investment and dev ressources where it matters for most of the players not a few ones.

 

That been said, imho, DRM are useless and unneeded complexity considering how they're implemented. You just need to do a better voxel editor … I don't think in-game creations should 'protected' at all because we can never guarantee who made what. It's not because someone  is protecting some voxels or code that he is really the rightful creator. IRL they are laws and law enforcing systems in place but we can't have those in-game.

 

Anyway a blueprint is a design document between a designer and a manufacturer, it's not for end users.

When you buy an IPhone you don't buy a BP of an IPhone, you buy a functional and working IPhone. The IPhone BP is between Apple and Foxconn and it doesn't need DRM, it's based on trust and contract between them.

 

This should be the same in-game, encouraging designers and manufacturers to work together based on trust (social gameplay in a mmo... too much?), instead of promoting a 'solo play style for designers' that this DRM system is clearly made for. Be consistent in your game design balance between solo pay and group play.

 

If you really want to 'protect' a product voxels from been too easily duplicated a simpler solution exists than DRMs:

 

- allow constructs to be 'sealed' forever: a sealed construct cannot be modified at all,  no  ''b"  mode at all. you can replace broken or not elements with same type elements (allowing customization variation like military version of an element) with the repair tool. This promotes more production of ships and more demands on elements and parts since nothing in a sealed construct can be reused in another construct. A salvage/recycle system can be added to get back some raw materials/parts eventually. People who want a ship they can modify will have to build it themselves or find someone to give them a BP or an unsealed construct. A small construct (sealed or not)  can be 'compactified' to be sold directly by p2p trade or via dispensers/markets. A bigger construct, sealed or not, can be put in 'for sale' mode ; it works like tokenization but anyone can right-click menu + buy the construct (owner would first need to right-clck menu -> "set for sale"  -> set the price -> confirm).

 

- the LUA of seats and PBs of a sealed construct can't be modified  unless they're wiped first. This allows the end user to eventually change the 'software' without been able to see the original software.

 

But imho there should be no protection at all in the game. Every piece of lua code in game should be freely readable by anyone.  Same for voxels. This promotes open source , innovations, security, bug correction and fairness. I know some people have a hard time understanding this but try to think more than 5 minutes about this. (and anyway the lore of the game is about humanity rebuilding so you really think survivors and settlers would bother with DRM?).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but think that some sort of survey should've been conducted as to changes to the RDMS system. As with your implementation of schematics, retroactively and arbitrarily including prior works with new RDMS restrictions was a really terrible idea. This, yet again, something no one asked for.

 

This game has quickly become not fun. My sub is done on the 15th. Good luck, cause you're gonna need it with decisions like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I love the DRM system,   I would like to see an interface to make it easier for some to understand. it should be easy enough to enable an interface when you create the Blueprint with  some checkboxes.    

 

 

1. Enable / Disable DRM 
2. Enable / Disable DRM for Voxels
3. Enable / Disable DRM for elements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Your DRM system has exactly 1 page of explanation in the Codex.

 

Let me share with you my experience with the DRM system after it was implemented. That experience was so bad, that I lost another ship, have a construct key in my inventory which cannot ever be deleted, and has put me in fear of ever using the DRM system for anything lest I lose my own constructs.

 

Shortly after the DRM system was changed, I created my own corp. I did this on the recommendation of other players, who indicated this would allow me to own additional constructs. After creating the corporation, I claimed a ship for it, to take that ship out of my personal number of constructs. I then attempted to compactify the construct, which failed because this was "not allowed." I then tokenized the ship, and then created a construct key for the construct, which was allowed. When I attempted to use the construct key, this was not allowed. I should point out here that the construct was built entirely from scratch by me.

 

I went back and forth with various mechanisms, claiming the construct for my corp, reclaiming it for myself, attempting to use the key, and so on. At no point was I able to either rebuild the ship -- which was now a totally useless token. I left the area, and the ship behind, and moved on. I eventually returned to the area later, and was able to simply deconstruct the construct, taking all the parts. However, it was at this time I noticed that it was impossible to delete the construct key I still had in my inventory. It's still there.

 

After this experience, it seemed quite risky to use the DRMS for anything, lest I lose control of my own construct. A bit later, I built a new ship, and used the menu command to disable construct rights on it. So, this construct does not have a [DRM] tag in its name. But, of course, that is not the end of the story.

 

So far I have been able to use the ship normally and change/improve its design. It is a design I intend to sell in quantity, and is currently owned by my corporation.

 

I saw a video recently where a player went to various bases and found ships without construct or DRMS implemented for the ships, who then stole these ships.

 

So, this suggests to me that since I have disabled the DRMS system for this particular ship, that my own ship is at risk of being stolen at any time. I have no way to check this without getting an alt account, which I won't be doing. As easy as it was to disable the construct right system with a single menu command, re-implementing DRMS on this very same ship brings me to the DRMS management screen, where I have to choose actors, policies and rights, and so on. Great.

 

I have spent about half an hour trying to figure out what to do here. The DRMS system as described and shown in game makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It allows the granting of "rights," apparently, to certain "actors" with certain "polices." Niiccceee.

 

Absolutely useless.

 

Moreover, my entire plan for gameplay is now destroyed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have experienced an issue with DRM that I don't know if consideration was given to the specific issue (Yes, a ticket has been submitted). 

 

Note, my actions were prior to the 0.23 update. I had two organizations (S. Legate on both). 

 

Org A set a L Static Core down, and Org B created a BP of that static core and set it in a different location.  Org A was disbanded (pre 0.23). 

 

After the update, I was unable to copy voxels, make BP, or release DRM.  Errors came up that I did not have permission from the Owner. I realized that Org A was the owner and attempted to create the Org A again in hopes it would allow me to release it, but the Orgs are probably indexed on the backend. That didn't work.

 

I went months adding hours of work on my L Static Core before this update, and now I'm stuck.  The creator no longer exist.  I hoping that NQ can  come up with a solution on transferring creatorship if an org is disbanded or if a player leaves the game for good. At a minimum, at least fix it for us that didn't have a warning.  In the future, add warning language that informs the org that a disband vote will cause the creatorship to be transferred or lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...