....so I've been wondering as I haven't really kept track of the Sc1 community since I stopped playing (which was about a year ago), I've received mail from the creator of SMC saying there's a new version out.
Now, as far as I know, map unprotection is not supported, but this also has a map protector that I don't think is possible to unprotect. I'm not sure if people are still even trying to unprotect things anymore in the first place.

So, should I post SMC 2.86 on the site, or should I just pretend it doesn't exist?


....on a sidenote, I'd like to say that as far as I know, SMC and various protectors like Special Protector crash out MAC users, so I advise everyone to use TinyMap2 for protection instead.
That's already hard as heck to unprotect.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 12 2012, 9:30 am by Zhuinden.

Why would an unprotector have a protector that it can't unprotect?

Since it can unprotect maps you can't post it. Simple as that. Doesn't matter what additional functions it has.

I was actually thinking about making a case for allowing unprotectors for personal and educational use, but that's another topic I have to open at some point in the future. >_>

Unprotectors are useful for accessing maps that have become corrupted or unreadable in some way. For instance, in some cases minting with Oreo triggers outputs a map that can be opened by Scmdraft, but cannot be saved by it (which can actually be nice, since ideally you'll never need to change the output maps anyway). But if you ever do want to change them, unprotectors can fix it.

If the mapmaker wanted their map used for personal and educational purposes, they wouldn't have protected it.


There are other ways to deal with map corruption (a rare instance in and of itself), the best of which is probably backing the map up, especially before running it through something like Oreo which has a chance of corrupting it.

The rule is in place because almost all people who use unprotectors do so to infringe on the rights of mapmakers. The people who would be experienced enough to be using unprotectors on their own maps also don't need help finding such programs. There's no reason whatsoever to provide or advertise such programs on this site.

As for this specific instance, I echo DevliN's question: Why would an unprotector include map protection that it can't unprotect? If it's capable of such protection, it'd be nice if the creator of the program could strip the unprotection features out I doubt that's a large concern of his though lol.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2012, 4:49 pm by Azrael.

Pretty simple:
1. SMC has a way of protecting maps that no other unprotector can open.
2. SMC allows you to specify a password, so only those who know the password can use SMC to unprotect the map.

So SMC isn't an unprotector at all?

I assume it also unprotects maps that weren't protected with it, and those wouldn't require a password.

Of course.

I spent quite a bit of time fiddling with 2.80 and 2.81, and IIRC I found a way to get around the password protection on it. Not 100% sure it worked for all different permutations of protection though; I might have only been able to break the older versions' (<2.80) password.

Everyone here knows how to unprotect maps. It would only be a benefit seeing as how it supposedly offers an unbreakable protection.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2012, 7:39 pm by Roy. Reason: Don't request material that is against Sen's rules on

Backing up doesn't apply here. Oreo takes an input map, then duplicates it and slaps the generated triggers on there for an output map. The input map isn't affected and the output map isn't corrupted, but it can't be saved in an editor. This would actually be a great feature for a map protector: viewable but not editable. Really though, this is such a limited case that it's not worth considering.

Just as side note, perhaps 80% of my use of OSMap is to fix corrupted maps, 10% fixing up old broken maps, and 10% taking a gander at someone else's map. I'd personally like to see the unprotector ban lifted on SEN, just so that we can have a better dialogue on map protection.

Now is the time for this discussion!

I support your claim. We shouldn't prevent people from knowing about unprotectors (which are useful educational tools) just because there are a very small minority of people who are not responsible enough to not steal maps or whatever.

I'd personally argue that one shouldn't feel as if it was a 100% legitimate thing to do to protect one's map.
Open Source results in a greater good for the community: an unprotected map can be improved by others. If someone unprotects it and changes the credits, the thing will fail because:
- He will probably not be able to spread the map as much as an already popular map
- If the maker is active in the community, he will see it and will most probably talk about it, resulting in social exclusion of the thief, which is good for the community
- If the maker is inactive in the community, he probably do not care about that community anymore, and he only wants his project to stay untouched because he feels legitimate to take such an action, while this actually hurts the community because a patch could introduce a bug, or there could be some balancing stuff to be done
- Fans of a popular map usually know their creator well if that creator actually wanted to be known for such project (credits everywhere): they will probably see that the new version is a scam and will take action against it

People shouldn't feel legitimate about preventing others from creating new versions of one's map.
But hey, I do not thing that intellectual property should exist. And the only reason I can think of at the moment that lets someone justify preventing others from modifying their work is by arguing that it's a piece of art.

We are hurting the whole community due to a few map-maker's irrational paranoia about their work being stolen.

Wasn't the Trigger Viewer program created for educational purposes, and could view triggers in protected maps? If you have that, would you still need an unprotector for educational purposes?

I don't think the community is hurt at all by it. If anyone wants to know how something is done in a protected map they can't unprotect, they can ask here or ask the mapmaker, and chances are they'll have a better experience learning how to do it by being taught with specific explanation rather than staring at triggers.

And hell, it's not like that many people are coming up with brand new systems in maps that the rest of the community doesn't already know about.

EDIT:
Obviously this is getting off-topic, sort of, but might as well have the discussion about it here and now.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2012, 9:31 pm by DevliN.

I don't think lifting the unprotector ban would have any positive effects whatsoever. Protecting a map stops people from editing it who aren't able to find an unprotector. Making the finding process easier only benefits those people; anyone who might have some rare legitimate use for an unprotector either already has one or can get one elsewhere.

Before anything else, this is a community for mapmakers. Helping people infringe on the rights of mapmakers by going against their clearly stated intentions isn't going to serve any purpose except making some of the very few remaining active mappers feel violated, and rightfully so.

A lot of protected maps have been submitted to the DLDB here under the established agreement that the site would not endorse methods for bypassing that protection.

Edit: I agree completely with every part of DevliN's post.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2012, 9:36 pm by Azrael.

If you're going to use an unprotector to look at someone's map for the purpose of learning, then do it.

If not, don't.

SEN need not involve itself at all.

If you're going to rape and murder people for the purpose of enjoyment, then do it.

If not, don't.

The police need not involve itself at all.

tl;dr: That's complete nonsense.

If you don't like that a map someone else made is protected, delete it off your hard drive. You don't have some inherent right to modify it, especially when they only created it and provided it to you under the agreement you wouldn't change it. That's what map protection is. It makes their intentions clear.

If you want to know how someone did something in their map, ask. You don't even need to ask them, you can ask anyone. Someone will tell you. This is what the SC UMS Mapmaking Assistance forum is for. Feel free to check it out.

I disagree with this, based on my experience.

I created the very popular Desert Strike Night Fixed map on b.net, which I protected. I did have a large fan following, people did recognise my name. I feel there were 3 primary reasons behind this:
1. Frequent updates, with new innovative features and balance changes.
2. High quality map with few bugs
3. Commitment to fixing bugs and exploits

Before my map, there were dozens of Desert Strike maps on battle.net, a lot of them with the same or similar names, and it was always a big of a jackpot as to what version you would be playing when you joined the game. There were exploit ones, old versions with crappy AI / obvious balance problems etc. However with my map, people could be pretty assured of the experience they would get when they played it, and that newer versions would be better in older versions, and although not everyone was happy with all changes, 95%+ of people preferred new versions to old ones.

This was possible because I protected my map. A few people did unprotect it and make their own knock-off versions, and generally I received negative feedback about them (with quite a few people thinking I had made them and asked why I did stupid/buggy things) and they weren't as popular as my ones (clueful people actively avoided joining games). However these maps were still trading on my good name and good reputation and no doubt annoyed many players on battle.net with their bad/buggy gameplay.

I'm sure that if I hadn't protected the map at all, there would have been more knockoffs and it would have created more frustration amongst the fans. Ultimately this would have worsened people's experiences, not improved it.

Because opening a map is equivalent in any way, shape, or form, to raping and murdering someone, and because enjoyment is equivalent to education.

Fuck your strawman.

I don't know how I missed his reply.


If that's your opinion, then make your maps open source. No one is stopping you.

Open source is a choice of the creator, not the consumer.


Yes they should. It's their work. It doesn't matter how entitled you feel about it, you shouldn't. They are the ones who put 100% of the time and effort into creating it. If you can't appreciate them giving you access to their work without giving you creative control over it, then delete it from your hard drive.

People shouldn't feel legitimate about violating the rights of the few people still providing something constructive to the community.


False. No one is hurting the community by continuing to create new content. Those people are the community, they are the core of this site and of StarCraft UMS. The only people hurting the community are the ones who drive mapmakers away by selfishly acting like they own everyone else's hard work.

If you want there to be more open source material, create it yourself.


It is. You're violating the rights of people for your personal betterment.

By the way, it's not a straw man, it's an analogy If you looked at the similarities instead of the differences (hint: analogies are analogous, not perfectly equivalent; you can look up what "analagous" means on your own time), the similarities are pretty obvious.