SLG hiding block shapes behind a paywall and calling it just cosmetic is in my opinion a game killer!
People have been waiting since the kickstarter on extra block shapes and now SLG calls that cosmetic and put it's behind a 15 dollar paywall.
And looking at the post this won't be the last blocks they going to hide...
just a little PSA: you can enable crafting of all marketplace items for free in the server config
That should not be the case, the setting is just for allowing using items you have - but do not own the blue print for.
Block shapes are made specifically per blockset, so they already have differences for most base sets. The introduction of paid skinned variants of base blocksets also doesn't mean we wouldn't add some shapes to base sets every now and then, as we have done in the past.
It is correct that we do consider these variants to be cosmetic. The gameplay value in the building mechanics is created by the economic and tier value of the base sets and the necessary requirements of having a specific tier and the linked material cost. Paid blocksets will always be variants of a base set with identical properties - not introducing any form of new crafting material or having a different tier - they are hence mechanically identical. How they look or how many shapes they have is not relevant to the gameplay loop, but solely cosmetic.
We had no plans to introduce additional blocksets to the game without them following a function, given that is their actual purpose and for the current goals already fulfilled with the existing ones. Adobe was added specifically to address feedback of it taking way too long to get set up with a starter house, altering game balance into the desired direction. The marketplace is what enables us to create more cosmetic variety to begin with that we wouldn't have done otherwise - and that variety will often come with specific themes that might not be appealing to everyone.
I understand that players may have personal ideas about other players having available other building materials that they subjectively consider to be cooler, but that still in the sense of the gameplay isn't any sort of advantage. If every psychological effect an item could have on someone would need to be taken into account for the simple statement of "is mechanically identical to the base variant", we'd be unable to introduce anything of the likes into the game - which I understand may be the desire of some people. But that unfortunately isn't an option as has been explained in other posts revolving around the marketplace.
Zataku Table gives 3 room value while a regular Lumber Table gives 2.5
I am assuming this is a mistake?
Yes, of course, it was reported in playtest and already addressed in a PR yesterday.
My main concern on this feature would be that these block sets and furniture items are effectively transferable by having the DLC owner place the blocks. They also can exist anywhere in the world (seemingly without limits). This does give advantage to players who partake in the competitive/casual artistic aspect of building things.
In contrast, clothing items can much more readily be made completely non-transferable and only wearable by the DLC owner. (Also, clothing like this is rather limited in scope to the player itself and cannot exist arbitrarily in the world.)
Edit: I do understand that there are business needs to ensure ongoing funding for development. However, I do want to push back on the statement "there is no gameplay advantage" since that requires strictly narrowing the definition of gameplay as 'tech tree advancement'
Eco revolves around playing with a large amount of players and also friends - the only way to reliably prevent players from placing blocks for others would be to disallow them to do so on any property that they don't own (and transferring any property they own) - which isn't viable and detrimental to the play experience. We also want players to be able to share their cosmetics with friends, as it is usual in other sandbox games - like Space Engineers. That is especially relevant for the share of coop players, but no less on multiplayer servers.
When we talk about gameplay advantages the scope naturally is always only the game mechanics. Eco doesn't revolve around any competetive artistic aspects as you mentioned, such activity results from personal player goals and interests of formed communities, but is not relevant to success in regard to the game goals, as such there is no gameplay advantage. Players can also have extremely different personal goals - not rarely such that can even be actively detrimental to the goals of the game and are often complained about, like making the most money or playing the criminal purposeful polluter. We had to make a viable decision and that was to make the marketplace offer cosmetic items without game mechanical effects, which is what we have been talking about.
If cosmetics are concerning to someone beyond that depends highly on personal opinions and can never be resolved in a satisfying way for everyone at once, the scope of opinions goes far in every direction. As per usual we have hence ensured that all options to customize your experience are available - servers can turn off the marketplace, configure how marketplace items can be used, apply admin discretion or use the law feature to regulate the usage - all marketplace items are fully subject to them. We don't expect that to become an actual problem in actual daily play, though - it seems there is some concerns that are more based on personal principles than how effects will actually turn out in the game.
If servers specifically have building contests or incentivize any specific sort of play where admins / organizers consider marketplace content to be detrimental for, they can make sure to set their rules to take cosmetic objects into account - just as servers that rely on sharing goods between everyone with economy playing no role may want to enable trading of items, which then is mostly a way for people to get their hands on things they can't or don't want to buy themselves. This way everyone can get what they want.
devtrackers.gg