Contract System

@AmandaPan and @Kal-El both do freelance build work, and the cuttlepunks as a guild have done quite a bit of it since release. Honestly, I think @Kal-El spends more time designing builds for people than he does playing the game at this point. Every time he puts out a design more people want one of his builds. So, for someone like him who would use this contract system entirely for building, these issues are probably near and dear to him. Much as they probably would be to the other well known builders in the game.

1 Like

No that is not what I said, I agree there are already a lot of disagreements. Why add something that only adds more conflict without really adding anything to the game? That is my point. If you already know it will create issues then why do it. If you want to do something different have the developers quit fooling with things like guilds and add actually content that engages players. After Farming, prioritize Titans, additional blocks to build with, a way to create dungeons, rented/private planets.

Because the developers set the rules. As you have stated players already have a lot of disagreements. why would we think this will be any different? You make something qualitative and you instantly will create conflict. Since we cannot name and shame, how do you expect any of the players that do take advantage of the system to be known to other players? This all comes down to he said she said. I built you a house, I like the design I built it in the time allotted. You see it in game and hate it. Who is right? The person wanting the build agreed to provide all the materials and does not do it in a timely manner so the build is not completed in time. How is any of this going to be measured? Who is going to arbitrate between the players other than the developers. I certainly am not going to want other players doing it.

Why is this such an issue anyway? Contracts have never made the top of any desired feature list I have ever seen in game. If this is true then why would we want the developers to spend any time working on this?

1 Like

My idea is that a set number of contracts appears for X number of days. You would have two separate boards. One for requesting goods, one for providing goods. While those contracts are out, players can then choose one and request someone fulfills it. As more people request one type of contract the reward for said contract increases. Now the question is- is this increased reward given by the player or could the system add on the bonus. Maybe use some of that tax/warp money to pay the contract surge fee.

In regards to a build contract, that is something i think should be negotiated the way it currently is. A board could be used strictly for visibility of the contract. Overall satisfaction of someone else’s work can’t be gauged by a system.

Contracts that ask for someone to guard you while you gather should give the person requesting protection a little extra health/armor. Too easy to get one shot by a spitter before the protector has time to react.

Would like to see a type of contract system for guilds as well, where you would agree to pay X amount of guild dues either weekly or monthly.

First I thank @Peyago for the free advertisement. Actually while I wait for farming, I am spending more time designing builds for other players. I have never felt taken advantage of by anyone I did a design for. I design for players I feel I can trust and who I think I can do a good job for. I have not needed contracts in order for any of this to happen. I have been part of engagements where all the materials have been provide and where we/I provided the materials. To me this is no different then starting a mall and having to trust other players who you let have slots in the mall.


What happens if a players does not pay the dues? They get kicked out of the guild maybe? Can you not already do this? Or do you want the system to take the coin from the player automatically? Is the system allowed to bankrupt a player?

The player would receive a notification at time of buff renewal and can agree to pay or decline for that week. If declined the player would not receive guild buffs that week. If agreed to make the payment then buffs would be granted. Of course it is not a perfect idea, I am sure somethings could be argued.

1 Like

I suggested something similar with inline to what your post is discussing about. I think having some kind of rewards system such as quest and contracts will help players in the long run.

I really think we need having player created ones as well would be good for the game. Give players control over what kind of content they want. I know players already kind of do this but having an interface and a list of tasks you are completing for other players/game would be a nice way to keep track of things.


So what would be that system or a solution? For everyone that is just shooting down the contract system because of a possible issue around “builds” they should be providing ideas on how to solve the problem and not just say “something needs to happen.”

I think the biggest difference in view and the problem people are having with not understanding the contract system is that this is about putting basic functionality into the game and allowing people to interact. Disputes in a build contract are between players and it is for players to solve - not really developers. Why? Because they put many systems in place but are not responsible for solving the disputes unless it crosses a very clear line. Example? You place a plot and build a beautiful build, I place a plot right beside you and build a god ugly mud hut. You are pissed but the devs don’t step into that because it is an issue between us. To each his own. They created the plot system but aren’t in the middle of each thing because this is a sandbox… contracts bring basically the same thing.

Don’t do contracts that Trolls promote. Don’t approve bids for Trolls that build. Don’t like what someone builds, don’t pay them. Build something for someone that doesn’t pay? Take personal responsibility and learn not to take contracts of untrustworthy people.

In a later iteration of the game we can add a star rating or something that shows how people are good people to deal with in contracts. I am sure that last sentence will cause the whole “troll” response too…

Just because people disagree doesn’t mean we are trolling you. So far people are bringing up valid points. I promise they aren’t out to get you or your ideas, they want a good product if the devs are going to spend time on this.

It sounds like you are attaching unwarranted hostilities to other’s posts. Reread what everyone wrote without assuming they are shutting down your idea.


That is not a fair point to characterize contracts as a system that only will cause conflict. You are taking one point of concern and providing no solution on how to fix it even though you build stuff. You are putting your interests and fears above the larger perspective of the game. Because of those fears of trolls you are denying all the people that would use the contract system fairly and honestly the in-game ability to do it.

They are doing this but let’s be very clear - Titans is for end game players, not all players. Contracts are for all. Dungeons are being started with a blueprint system that is likely build built off of the sanctum editor but is still a while out because there are huge questions on how dungeons would interact with the world. Additionally it needs quest systems and other components that have not been built. Additional blocks to build with require funds for asset and model creation. They have to manage finances carefully. Rented/private planets are still a while out because they do not have the final management layer that is needed around permissions.

As with anything in development they can add multiple things at once. It is poor development to just focus on one type of content and not provide other systems that increase interaction and the ability for the game to be more fully functional.

Contacts are already in use in this game and people do them constantly. You get paid for building or others get paid for getting stuff for others outside of shops. This provides a more in game solution and is minimal work but increases the game functionality exponentially because the systems that were put in place can be leveraged in other functions or game components. Not seeing how one component in the game can help another is being very myopic.

You cannot name and shame in the forums. No one said that you could not have a contract rating or some type of satisfaction rating. A rating system that links to both the bidder and contract owner.

You bring up valid points but there is NO solutioning in your points. Nothing that tries to make the system better and find a way to make it so the system COULD exist and work.

The players. The developers are on the hook to provide functionality. This is a sandbox MMO that requires players to handle their own stuff.

The issue is they need larger and smaller points of content and functionality to exist in this game. They get that and fully understand why this is an important part of the game.

People didn’t ask for the Meteor event. People didn’t ask for the love struck event or any of the other ones. People did not ask for the coin machine…

Also this type of point is really a bad approach to challenging something. Why? Because you could find arguments against Titans, Dungeons, Farming, and all other types of content.

I do agree there should be some type of timing limit but that should be based on the category or something. Ultimately we just need to make sure to keep the board from getting stale. Player size shouldn’t matter as long as it has a good navigation feature.

Contracts are players set and should not be generated in any other way. Players want it faster they pay more, have competition for the goods - pay more. etc…

Actually people did ask for the coin machine. Back in October/November. People matter of fact called it a coin machine generator.

And in a previous post I think you said they began working on it since December? So there seems some cause and effect there.


You missed the context. The common response has been Trolls will cause problems with contracts and we can’t have build contracts because of Trolls. The idea of a rating or satisfaction system will cause people to disagree because Trolls might give them a low score unfairly. So I was referencing that and not people that disagree.

Did I say you or Kal-El or any other person was trolling me or that you all didn’t want a good product?? Please don’t try to read into my thoughts or create a perception that is what I am thinking.

We all want the game to be good. That is an obvious point. We all wouldn’t be vocal if we didn’t.

I know clearly how hostile you are toward me because of our last PM - even after I tried to solve the problems between us. So I am not surprised to see you try to paint a picture of me being hostile because it promotes the narrative of you and other people on the forum of who you think I am and what you all want others to think about me.

Actually instead of giving me advice, maybe you should take your own advice and reread my posts and see someone that is passionate and willing to challenge disagreements that don’t really provide constructive solutions or move the conversation forward toward resolution. Most of the disagreements have been just to shoot the idea down and not make it better. Why? Because when there are no ideas provided on how to fix the concern that was brought up the disagreement really is just moot and helps no one.

Good point. In fairness I don’t know James original ideation point for that. Whether he saw the comment and took on the idea or whether it was like he explained to me on the call when I first heard about it - and that he noticed no one having any coin in request baskets so he thought a coin generation machine might help.

Ultimately, I think that every idea in the game has some level of cause and effect. Ideas and content comes based on discussion and needs that are present in the game.

My point overall was that content was released when there was minimal “demand” so trying to shoot down the contract system because “no one is asking for it” is really a bad point to try to disagree on.

If we have a idea list that was voted on to create priority of what comes out first over something else, then I certainly would allow this to fall wherever it falls. But, right now I’m passionately pushing it because I roughly now where the devs are in near term/far term content and small wins like this I feel help the game overall. Plus when I heard they had a lot of it already built then I felt it was worth the time versus if they were doing it from scratch. I probably wouldn’t push it as hard then.

Actually it is not my responsibility to find a solution for something that I do not think is needed in the game. If you do think this is so important (and others) then find a way to lessen the concerns.

However, I did state several times (which may have been missed) that the only way to do this is to make contracts quantitative and not qualitative. You can create as many contracts as you want that have someone providing specific items in a given time for given coin. These are all measurable features to a contract that do not force any kind of intervention or qualitative decisions. If you do not have the coin to pay then the contract does not exist, if you do not deliver the correct amount of goods the contract is void. If you do not provide them in the proper time frame, then the person letting the contract gets their coin back. This does not require any intervention as long as the programming works, but it likely excludes forged items (they have too many variables) and builds.

Players do not “handle their own stuff now” so why would any one think they will in this case. When a players puts out a million coin build and another spends weeks gathering and building and then one side or another is not happy, there is no way this is not going to get escalated to forums and create unneeded drama. All this does is further erode player satisfaction with the game and makes the forums even worse for a player trying to make a decision on buying the game or not.

Actually part of this is not true. If you search the forums you will see comments asking for a way to cash in trash items for coin, so the coin machine was asked for. As to the first point, then add content to the game. Add more blocks for building between the larger release. Repurpose the existing textures for bricks to allow them to be used for other types of rock materials. Do the same for decorative so we can use the 6 decorative designs on every type of rock and the 3 decorative wood on every type of wood. This is new content using existing textures and does not require an entirely new system like a contract would. It adds items that can be sold and created. It increases demand for resources (since building is the ultimate consumer of most blocks). A contract system does not add real content to the game. It does not add something that cannot be done now. It might add a formal mechanic, but I think it is disingenuous to say it is really new. I can and have done “contracts” to design and build, I can use a request basket to get goods for coin or (as I have done) ask a player directly to make something I need for x coin. I can discuss other tasks requests in the forums and on discord as players do now.

Maybe, but they are things that a large number of players have been asking for. Do I personally want or need Titans in the game. Probably not, but it is important to a large number of players and has specifically been mentioned by the developers. I expect Titans to happen and would be disappointed if they did not.

1 Like

If they are already in this game then why is this topic even necessary? I would argue it is your argument that is myopic. I am looking at the long term effect of putting a mechanic in the game that will create more work for the developers and does nothing to add any real features. I think wanting existing game play repackaged with all the necessary programming and testing at the expense of other development is more shortsighted. especially in a game where the user base is as low as it is and if you ask for what new content is desired, contracts do not come up. I think for the long term good of the game they need to add real content like blocks, furniture and other items that add something for crafters, gatherers, shops and builders.

1 Like

I think player made quests would be something that you could connect with other suggested things in game; you could get quest from some shop stand to get certain planet to complete maze or dungeon that had mob spawners, or it could be request basket fetch quest with short story.

I am more into functional blocks to make builds more interactive but contract/quest system would be something that would give possibility to give player made interaction also in wilderness, and maybe possibility to give some story that some players seem to look for.

1 Like

I avoid you because our personalities don’t mesh, but I am not hostile towards you. Your reputation isn’t important to me one way or another.

However, pointing out flaws in a system has already given us a potential fix for the building contracts to make them work, i.e. blueprints. People finding potential flaws gives others a chance to give the devs more ideas.

1 Like

I will provide a single word of caution about any free-form “contracts” or other such system.
Eve online did it before and they had to completely gut and change the system. It had courier contracts, for example. “Take x to y and get paid z”. But if the collateral was lower than the value of x, folks would just break the contract and keep the goods. It was amazingly common.

Even when they upgraded the system they have functionality built in to “reduce scammers”. Not on the front end, but by giving you tools to filter out information. Ultimately it’s all on you.

Folks cannot even deal with beacon disputes. Want to add a whole new level of misery? Bring goods into the mix.

It would, however, be fine if any contract was limited in function and held in escrow. Neither party could back out and once the terms were fulfilled, it pays. “Deliver 5000 metamorphic rock” is different than “deliver 5000 black metamorphic rock”. If the contract initiator only puts “metamorphic” and intended “black” they are out of luck if the contract gets accepted.

The protection would have to go both ways or the system would be too easy to abuse.

Just a few thoughts.