I come from an eve online background myself. Younger, sillier me lost quite a bit when the system originally came out.
Honestly, blueprints are an entirely different idea Iâd asked for months ago.
I SUCK at designing my own builds. Iâve offered millions in coins back when a million coins wasnât held by many folks. Thatâs how terrible I am at conceptualizing and fleshing out a build. I can follow a build fantastically, but the creation of it? Terrible.
The blueprint idea should be its own system entirely as I proposed months back. The plot system already lends itself to this. I am imaging a plot system within the plot system where a âblueprint/plotâ is sold and can be inserted in to an existing plot that you own. The blocks then show invisibly in plot/build mode and you fill them in and chisel as shown.
The contract system or commission system is a completely different beast. The two systems however would mesh wonderfully together. I hope I explained that well enough?
2 Likes
Yeah, I remember the post and you explained it very well. Its one of those ideas that could create a huge market and could greatly increase a builderâs impact on the game. I agree it would mesh great with the contract system.
2 Likes
I only thought of the blueprint system as the solution, but with it the job would be more like a construction worker rather than an architect so probably not what youâre looking for.
Blueprints do offer some nice options for all sorts of purposes. They would allow guilds or players doing a group build to do repetitive portions easier using blueprints of wall sections or towers or whatever they might have. As far as selling blueprints. I think you have to decide it they are one use or if someone buying them can use them multiple times and resell them to other players. If a blueprint had to be created in a Sanctum environment then that could control players making copies of other players builds. And if they are one use then you do limit the worlds becoming littered with the same build over and over again. Since you would negotiate the price if you were selling a medieval wall section, I guess you could sell the person a pack of multiple blueprints of the same build so they could repeat it for their entire settlement.
I do think this is an idea that could be handled pretty easily. If there is a way to preview a blueprint, then the person buying knows what they are getting. The person selling might waste some time on the designs, but at least they have not built anything and wasted even more time and resources. They also can try and sell the blueprint to someone else.
1 Like
I personally advocate for a 1 use (one and done) system. Specifically to prevent replicas from being made.
Unless they can design two separate systems where you could make one and done and others for a limited amount of runs. I donât think they should be able to be resold. This prevents people from hoarding them and reselling for a higher price though I guess a person could just go to the originator and ask them to create an original.
1 Like
Blueprints needs its own thread (again). 
Was hoping to see more discussion around enforceable player quests
2 Likes
Apologies for contributing towards it again. Perhaps it gets developer interest so itâll quit finding a way to hijack other issues that deserve discussion as well.
1 Like
I would think you could just sell multiple copies to someone that needed them for a larger build. If you only allow them to be sold by the creator (since they can tag forged tools with the creator they might be able to tag blueprints) that can prevent resale or players trying to hoard. Unless they are hoarding to get enough to do their build.
No it is not your responsibility, but you help no one by not trying to help solve it. Obviously I think it is important because I continue to try to find way to solve the concerns. But, I also see the subjective nature of the word âconcernsâ and problems people think exist. For me it comes down to the point that adding functionality and the ability of contracts provides way more good to the game than not.
Yes I answered this point in another response, to be fair that some ideas have been talked about. But it is not true to then state that no one is asking for a âcontract system.â Just like the below point is not true when it does provide content.
You could use this excuse for a million other things. As I pitched this to James it was about base functionality that should be added for a variety of reasons. Not to mention that it is important to bring functionality into the game that is removed from Discord and other outside forces.
It is called adding an in game supported functionality versus allowing outside game functionality using services and other things. Plus that functionality is used in other ways like a quest system, like a better interface for people to do goods and services among each other. It provides a system for people to communicate more in the game⌠it helps with a variety of things.
I am all for this but as you are aware that is asset creation versus programmer duties on most levels. So add away on additional blocks since it has limited impact on the other teams.
If the free form contract was only for guilds would you still be as concerned?
This is my interest here too.
Call it a contract or a quest, but i want XXXX orbs for a shovel. Or leaves with an axe. And the player needs to be able to get the tool to do the work.
A simple seeming (from the outside) solution seems to be that if a tool is received via contract, all loot generated with that tool goes into an escrow. When the tool breaks the escrow is released to the person who provided it.
Perhaps there could be a setting for blocks, drops, or both.
Then I could set a contract for an axe, and as the player used it have it send only the bark and sap to escrow, leaving any trunk and foliage to the person doing the job.
Or I could set a contract for a shovel, and have the system send clay blocks to the escrow whole the person who accepted the contract gets the yams and such.
The first method of griefing would be taking the tool and not doing the work, which is timer addressable. Partial work would return a partial tool and the loot generated would already be in escrow.
The next thing I see is simply farming the wrong blocks. I donât know how much change or info a tool can have associated with it, without any fundamental changes. But a flag saying what types of block it could be used on would be great.
It could even have a color filter, maybe sharing the request basket features for this.
In many cases that would be enough. People could play free, earning exp and coffers or whatever. It would also be great to add an item or some coin that would be released to the worker when the contract is filled.
Then we could produce something like, use this axe on blue ancient wood only and if you use the entire axe you get 25k coin or a forged tool.
THAT would be one hard contract though. 
It might be good to have staged rewards even. Use 25% of that axe on blue ancient and only get 5k, paid when you return the remaining tool to the âmailboxâ or wherever you got the contract.
Builder contracts are not going to be easy for sure, without a solid blueprint making it a labor contract. I think much like real life builders we could have some staged material releases, with inspections. While maybe anyone could take up an axe and fulfill a loot quest you would have to tender an offer for a building contract, which the person offering the work would have to accept.
This creates a hold and a chance to have some discussion before you allow the builder to take any of the materials. To make sure the person understands what you want and youâre willing to let them give it a go. Perhaps ideally this contract mechanism could assign them temporary engineer/builder rights to the pre-plotted space.
In any case it wonât be possible to address EVERYTHING that some evil genius is going to come up with. But with inspection.approval stages and these contracts requiring mutual approval before they begin, it could be done.
These sort of systems could enable a lot. But especially for those that are building for hire or doing other, less quantifiable tasks trying to have a system to combat subtle griefing is a losing game.
If you want someone to plot a space, supply materials, and build you a build that youâre just going to buy for coin at the end - trying to have an automated system to manage and approve this would be a nightmare.
We could easily get to staged escrow and mutual approval. This would help in these situations but just like in real life, if something happens and the parties fall apart at stage 7 of an 8 stage contract, someoneâs going to need to call a lawyer.
Hey, if the contract system gets put in, even as described and not limited to guilds, Iâd use it.
Iâm not going to get scammed because I donât pay attention. But others will. So letâs be clear, this is a âlowest common denominatorâ problem.
That being said, limiting it to guilds would mitigate the issue, but not remove it. The only way to solve it entirely is to make it idiot proof. To where wonderstruck literally will say âthis is all on you and our system protects youâ.
If beacons had that level of cover for wonderstruck (default 1 week fuel, e-mail alerts when running out of fuel, plotting permissions nearby) that would eliminate a bunch of drama.
2 Likes
I will again disagree. Contracts are not something that is already in game and have not even been mentioned by the developers in the official road maps. As such, I think my responsibility is to point out flaws if I see them before they even waste time in development. Just because I do not have a solution does not mean I should not point out the problems. And frankly I do not see any solution to the issues I have brought up other than only allowing contracts for quantitative things (which I have brought up 2 or 3 times with examples already but you may have missed that). I will also disagree that adding and functionality to the game including contracts that have severe flaws that have not been worked out provides more good than problems. I feel this is flawed logic at best.
It is not base functionality. If it was the game could not function with out it. Would it maybe be a nice to have? Yes if it did not result in more problems than it solved. If it is a nice to have and there has not been the level of player demand that there has for some many things, then it still comes down to why have the developers spend any time on it? If this can be done, even if it is not optimal to do it outside the game, then should things that are not even possible maybe be added first and things like this put on the back burner? I have yet to see any reviews that complained that there was not contract system in Boundless. I have seen a lot that complain about real lack of content like Titans and dungeons.
Edit added after post
If you want to add something of value to the game then this is the kind of things that will reduce the drama versus a function that will only add to it.
1 Like
I agree with Kal-El that we need to have the contracts quantifiable, otherwise petty disputes will happen like with beacons.
As a partial solution I would suggest that contract templates could be rolled out over time the way guild buffs have. Start with something simple like a gathering contract and the player can assign quantity and type.
Something like a security/escort contract could be added after. Perhaps you could quantify âProtect Noob Gathererâ by
- A timer
- Distance between players not to exceed X
- Noob defeats must not exceed Y
Building Contracts could be added once blueprints are in game. The purchaser could review the blueprint somehow, then the builder follows the blueprint and gets paid once done.
Edit: I donât think contracts will devalue request baskets. I still sell stuff to request baskets and occasionally âfill a contractâ Discord or the forums.
Well it was important to the community them at some point. So the approach being taken to try to shut this down is failed logic.
At the end of the day I get you donât want, like, or feel we need this. Other people do and at least the Developers have been receptive to it. They are willing to look at a variety of things and consider them and see what makes sense and what doesnât. In the end Iâm more interested in trying to influence them in ways that they can see that there are solutions to the issues you raise even if you donât believe there are.
You misunderstand the point I was making. And everything else in that paragraph continues to show you miss the context or understanding of my points and arenât willing to try to.
This is turning into a very circular argument⌠youâre all going over the same things again and again. Differences of opinion are fine - letâs not turn this is to a repetitive pushing of opinions please. Agree to disagree and move on.
I also agree that contracts need to be quantifiable - they need to be set in stone in such a way that it does not create drama between players. Any systems implemented should be as simple and basic as possible and should leave no room for disputes⌠KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Not only is that fun to say, itâs also a solid design principle.
I have a feeling some of the quantifiable contract requirements could also be handled by a different sort of shop stand - basically allowing trades. Trade X item(s) for Y item(s). The only difference would be in the advertising of the available trades⌠which is something many people have asked for with regards to locating shop stands, either at a settlement, planetary or universal level.
At the moment, contracts feel to me, to be more of a Quality of Life improvement - they donât provide anything really new to the game that people are not already doing in some way or another via either in-game chat or external communications. People will also always talk about things outside of the game (as we canât all be in game 24/7 even if we wanted to!), so I think for the most part, the current methods are sufficient for the moment. I would much rather all team efforts went into providing more unique content and game functionality, such as what I hope farming to be.
I also think that with the current alts/skill set system, most people are able to do most things themselves⌠Ideally we should be looking to flood the game with double the amount of craftable items than currently exists, so that developing the systems to handle contracts becomes more justifiable.
4 Likes
I just want to say I disagree with this part. Personally as someone who was a primary PS4 player, that is QoL improvement yes, but a HUGE one, compared to the tools PC players have. There will always be disparity between QoL of PC and PS4 players but this specific thing youâre talking about would change PS4 QOL play tremendously. While PC players itâd be a bump up as most PC players access discord/forums during their gameplay. As a PS4 player I donât have that luxury.
1 Like
I have Discord and the forums on my phone while I play on PS4.
3 Likes
I understand that a lot of players have that. Not everyone does.
My option is to go and buy a better phone I guess is what you are suggesting?