As long as the rule stands to preserve the author's wishes (simply put),
It is also a rule that can be enforced within the limits of this site
Too bad only 0.01% (2000@SEN / 200000@BNET)* of people who play SC visit this website. Almost everyone who supports map cracking seems to have this completely insane idea that every single person who matters, makes maps, or uses map cracking utilities is a member of this website. How many people have downloaded or used map crackers? How many people have downloaded SCMDraft 2? How many guests visit this site, don't read anything, but use it for downloading programs? I would wager a hell of a lot more than the meager 2000 or so members I expect this website to achieve (at the moment there are not even 1000, I am being generous). You're being an elitist cock by taking the stance that only this website matters and no one else exists.
*This is a ridiculously conservative estimate. The actual percentage is may be as low as 0.002%. This site has less than 1000 members at the moment and there are ~80,000 people on USEast alone at any given time. Over the course of a single day there could be three or four times that just on East.
And protection, what is it's purpose? Ignoring author credit, the primary purpose is to stop a shitload of copies of one map from popping up. As I said, not every shitty little map needs to be protected. It may even be detrimental to the community to do so since those bad maps could be edited to be better. That IS your argument, isn't it? That some maps would benefit from being edited and that protection ruins that possibility?
The problem with that is, every once in a while a good map comes along that does not need to be edited and should be protected to preserve it's integrity in the community (not SEN, the Battle.net SC community) as long as possible. As I said, how do you choose what is worth keeping protected and what isn't? You can't. So you leave that freedom up to the person who made the map and hope they make the right decision. It is a more morally appropriate stance than saying that everyone is a total moron and that no one should be allowed to make the decision.
Protection means that the average user on Battle.net sees a huge majority of shitty maps and a few really damn good ones.
No protection means that the average user on Battle.net sees only mediocre maps.
You can try and argue that just because a map isn't protected, doesn't mean it won't be played by a lot of people. But people will edit it as soon as they get the chance to make maps easier, and the original solid game stops being hosted. I've seen it happen time and time again and anyone else who actually goes on Battle.net every once in a while and plays maps knows this is what happens. I would never expect you to understand something like that. But for someone like me, I don't give a flying fuck what a few people on this website think, I would rather good maps spread and be played by as many people as possible on Battle.net.
On a personal note, I have made two maps, Team Micro Attack and Civilization Sapphire which are both based on previously created maps that were never protected in the first place. There was never any reason for me to view the triggers or the inner workings of those maps or even consider editing the original versions, since they were too damn awful. I could have chosen to make slight improvements to those maps (ie: more mediocre shit) or I could have chosen to make new maps that are extremely high quality (we can play them if you want).
Oh, and DTBK just posted this giant lame post below mine. Most people are probably going to skip right past this one and only read the most recent post. The same thing is true with maps on Battle.net. People play what is new, even if it is a shitty new rigged version of a map that may end up overwriting the original good version.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 23 2007, 7:28 pm by Esponeo.
None.
