If you had no means to contact the original author of a map because he is simply not available anymore (dead/left the community), I do not see how you feel like it's a good idea to waste your time recreating what you could get in a matter of a few seconds. But I'm actually not sure about what position you've taken over that statement.

-----

It seems to me like SEN's community is in favor of the idea of "map property", and it is thus quite obvious to me that SEN shouldn't and won't allow unprotectors. Which definitely doesn't mean I believe it is right to do so.

I vote in favor of offering downloads to unprotection tools on SEN.

There is no issue. The REAL argument summary is the following:

Side A: "Let's put up a tool that unlocks maps, Broodwar is old and it really doesn't matter anymore"
Side B: "OMG PARANOIA IS COMING OUT OF MY ASS, DON'T DO IT, ...RIGHTS...STEALING...PETA...HITLER...DOEZGODEXIST..."

I'm against offering unprotection tools. I obviously don't map, but given that my boyfriend still mods for the C&C games even though they've been out for ages and the community isn't big anymore, I can see how someone like him would appreciate being asked first. This whole "but the game is dead" thing doesn't make sense to me. People worked hard on their maps, in theory. You should respect the work they've done.

Well that's the thing. Is it their right to tell us we can't look at their maps? Some insist that it is, others insist that it isn't. But most agree with taking a pragmatic stance that the potential benefit outweighs the potential harm.

Either way, that's not relevant. We already host tools that let you view a map without being able to modify it.

I hate map protection and everything that it stands for.

I vote against allowing unprotection tools to be posted on SEN. You can google them.

We already have a host of tools available that allow you to unprotect a map completely.

I asked Moose if he would post an unprotected version of Armored Core, and add a disclaimer about not modifying or redistributing it.

The exact post was:


I wasn't trying to start anything. I assumed he would think it was a good idea, considering the views he's given here.

He said no, he's not making any unprotected versions of his maps available.

My post was later moderated with severity, regardless of my question being incredibly polite, telling me to keep it in this thread.

So here it is, in this thread, as requested.

Oh of course not Az, just like im sure Roy or Heinnerman wouldnt want anyone tampering with their programs, or anyone who maps in SC2 tampering with their maps, etc.

It's all a big joke until they're directly affected.
Not taking a shot at Roy or Heinnerman btw, I was just using you guys as an example.

Releasing open maps with an added disclaimer to maps is a viewpoint and solution offered by payne, not by me. Evidently, this means my viewpoint must not have been understood, so I will summarize:

- I believe that anyone should be able to download unprotectors.
- I believe that you should be able to unprotect any map for educational purposes, including the interactive learning environment it provides, if you wish to test without distributing.
- I believe that you should not be able to distribute unprotected copies (including copies that were not otherwise edited or were re-protected afterwards) of protected maps.
- I agree that Trigger Viewer makes for an excellent compromise, in particular extended or more powerful versions.

Anyone is are more than welcome to take any or all of these steps on Armored Core or any of my maps, as I told Azrael in private. Of course, I cannot prevent a person from taking these steps, nor will I even know when anyone takes such steps. (Incidentally, a stolen version of Armored Core was floating around battle.net games a few years ago.) If anyone has any questions about the mechanics or inner workings of Armored Core or any other map I have made (regardless of whether or not the person unlocks the release version), he or she may post in the UMS Assistance forum or speak to me privately. The rest of SEN and I would be delighted to assist everyone.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 2 2012, 4:31 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Clarifying my beliefs further.

Would you oppose to someone altering armored core and releasing it on b.net without your name on the map? I'm just asking because I only see you making it a point that your map should only be used for educational purposes. While anyone can get an unprotector anywhere, would you feel delighted about enabling an extra source to the program that could erase any knowledge of you creating your map? I've seen it happen, a lot of people on b.net dont even know who Nuderaider is anymore because there are so many other versions of DS without his name on it.

Of course I would be opposed, that is map stealing. It has already happened to that particular map and I was not happy. That being said, I would assume that any SEN user who wants so much to steal a map would be more determined than to give up because they could not get such a program on SEN. Therefore, I would not feel delighted about enabling an extra source of availability for the unprotectors, but I would not feel that enabling it was directly responsible for the theft. Perhaps I am uninformed about the availability of map unprotectors, but the general consensus seems to be that whether or not SEN hosts them does not have a significant impact on the difficulty of obtaining one. I also believe that the thief should face the full consequences of map theft regardless of whether or not SEN hosts any programs. Given the nature of map unprotectors, the best form of map protection is posting the map and release threads in popular public areas.

One thing that often goes un-mentioned in discussions of unprotection is the usefulness of unprotected maps as resources for making your own maps-- not as learning tools, but as libraries of components that you can copy-paste into your own maps.

If you're making a map in a genre for which you are also a player, it's not at all uncommon to think-- "I want this part of my map to work like this," with a part from an existing map in mind. In cases of that sort, being able to copy-paste triggers/terrain/interface layouts/whatever from a map with which you are familiar can save a good bit of time. Even more importantly than the time saved, though, is that if you copy something directly, rather than re-creating it (with some possibility of variation), you can then bring your experience as a player of the older map to bear in balancing your own map. Having the knowledge that a certain part of your own map is exactly like something with which you are familiar-- not an approximation or a reproduction-- can give you a much firmer starting point for calibrating the original portions of your map.

For debugging, too, it's useful to have systems that are "a known quantity". Even if you know for sure that you have made your version work exactly like the original, if you haven't copy-pasted from a functional copy, you have no guarantee that you haven't made a typo, or accidentally left something out, or forgotten to change something that you meant to change for different players, or any one of the hundreds of kinds of accidental errors that can happen when triggering to cause bugs even when you know that the systems are designed properly.

I suppose some people might object that re-using parts of existing maps in your own is "theft", but I really don't see how. For one, there's absolutely no difference between a map that is created with copy-pasted systems and one that is created "from scratch" (well, except insofar as the additional free time gained by the copy-paste method allows the creator to make improvements). But also, according to the Starcraft license, you surrender all rights to the maps you make; once you do that, anyone else has just as much of a right to use parts of it as you do. Now, what is typically called "map theft" is a somewhat different issue, but not because it actually involves "theft"; the problem with map stealing is that when you put your name on a map that isn't yours, you are misrepresenting yourself as the creator of the map. But if the overall result of your work is a substantially distinct creation, even if it re-uses systems from existing maps, there is no misrepresentation in calling yourself the creator. So copy-pasting parts of existing maps into your own is a legitimate mapping practice, and unprotectors, insofar as they facilitate that practice, have a legitimate purpose as mapping tools (sidenote: for the same reasons, it is not "map theft" to make an unapproved version of an existing map; that said, in such a case, you are not producing a substantially distinct creation, so you must preserve the credits, while also making clear which aspects are not to be attributed to the original creator).

On this perspective, it makes sense for us to provide a source for such programs-- a source that is more convenient, and also quite possibly safer, than searching and then downloading from a website of unknown safety. It is not unheard of for map unprotection software to contain viruses, especially if you're trying to obtain something that is not widely available. Given that unprotectors are useful for making your own maps, it would be nice to have a clean source for such tools.

Doesn't Trigger Viewer fail to view (some) protected maps? Also what if you want to view unit placement, locations, fog of war, etc.?

What would be the point of a mapmaking website if everyone just copied and pasted triggers instead of learning for themselves how it works? If it's someone who already knows how it works, chances are it would only take them a few seconds to write up the trigger themselves anyway. I can somewhat see your point for terrain, but even then (correct me if i'm wrong) SEN already has a huge arsenal of terrain maps hosted and unprotected which is primarily for copying and pasting.

As far as I can gather from reading the entire thread, the main problem is that hosting the Tool (this particular dual protector-unprotector) permits any random layman an easy method of stealing a map. However, the Tool itself is very useful for both protecting and unprotecting, each act having its own pros and cons. And, in itself, SEN hosting the tool is a benefit so that no one risks downloading an illegitimate copy of the Tool.

Why not provide the Tool (note: only this particular one) only to those SEN members who show themselves not to be a random layman?

Criteria may be as simple as "trusted Regular (the ranking displayed beside our usernames) members and higher ranking members" plus any trusted unranked members ("trusted" as determined by his/her contributions to the community or similar form of merit).

SEN hosting the Tool will not have any practical effect on anything (besides server space). The only effect hosting it would have is cause a schism in the community members.

That is to say, the goal should be how to keep community united, especially when it already is small.

That said, I think the Tool should be hosted on SEN, but only certain members that meet a set of criteria or withstand an examination or scrutiny should be provided access to it.
I find this to be a reasonable compromise.
Untrustworthy people would not be able to access it - not only that, but only trusted people would have access. That is, only those people that we already know would not use the Tool for malicious purposes. Thus, the party against hosting the Tool should be satisfied.
At the same time, due to the nature of the issue at hand, those that are for hosting the Tool should be satisfied, as they would have safe access to a program that does have very legitimate uses. (And it would appear that those for hosting the tool would not use the Tool in a malicious way either*.)

*: except payne. If we go through with something like this, definitely do not give it to payne. He would probably post it on every site possible. (Jokes - if he really wanted to, he could have googled the Tool and redistributed it multiple times in the time it took him to get to the end of this post. But at that point, unless he told someone, I don't think any of us would notice.)

SEN could go with either course of action. But in the interest of saving face and keeping the community together, SEN should not provide free access to the Tool to literally anybody who looks or asks.

EDIT:

Allow me to make my position clear:
SEN should not be concerned with the act of hosting the Tool itself.
SEN should only be concerned with the repercussions that impact SEN itself, ex. its public image, its community members, its usefulness to mappers.
Whether or not SEN hosts the Tool is insignificant with respect to number of other ways one can acquire the Tool. Even if there was only one other website that hosted the Tool, that alone would be sufficient for anyone to acquire it at any time and do whatever they please with it.

EDIT2:

The methodology of doing what is best for SEN and SEN alone should be applied to any discussions concerning the hosting of any similar protection and unprotection tools. What SEN did before was good/bad for SEN in the past - the present SEN should evaluate its current position and the future with respect to the present and possible future impacts.


EDIT3:

SC Mapping and Modding can safely be considered dead. There are a few people who still make and play maps, but at this point, I do not foresee any major population changes in the future barring an explosion of interest in SCBW by another, larger population. Doing anything at this point boils down to pride, saving face, respect, and any other intangibles. I see no actual reason for either hosting or not hosting, besides keeping the community together, with even that being a largely intangible thing.

Although, I would personally like to have a copy of such tools, even if I am probably never going to use them.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Dec 2 2012, 3:07 am by Sand Wraith.

I don't see how it would reduce the function of a map-making website at all. Maybe there'd be slightly less traffic in map-making assistance...but perhaps also slightly more traffic in Map Showcase, because of making things easier and faster. People would still have to know how to make triggers, because it's pretty rare to be able to make a fully functioning original game where all of the systems are pre-made. And even if all systems were pre-made, there'd still be plenty to talk about in terms of game design, i.e. how to put the systems together to make something that is fun to play. Knowing the finer points of triggering is just one skill in map-making, and I think that history shows that it's far from the most important one.


For some systems, maybe, but for others, no. Some systems have lots of triggers, but no particular sophistication: for example, level-up systems where each level happens at an individually-specified amount of experience rather than following any sort of formula. And what if you don't know how a system works, but have a good idea for a game that has to use it? Sure, if it's a very simple system, just being able to look at it with a trigger viewer would grant an understanding of it, but other systems-- especially ones involving EUDs and the like-- are much less transparent. One of the nice things about copy-paste is that it allows you to use a system even if you aren't yet at a level where you can figure out how it works.


So what? More is better.

And if what you want is a specific piece of terrain, not just a kind of terrain (because you are a pro at the map that the terrain comes from, and know its characteristics well), it doesn't matter what other pieces of terrain are in the database, since you don't have the same in-game familiarity with any of them.

Not sure if you really are joking.

@All arguments related to the low activity in mapping: it doesn't look like a legitimate argument at all to me.
"Oh, there is only 1 mapper left, and he doesn't want his map to be unprotected. Let's not care about his opinion and post the unprotector because there are so few mappers."

Someone mentioned how an earlier version used to allow users to see those as well, but people called it "unprotection" and it got changed. Hence the discussion about "Improved versions" of Trigger Viewer.

Not everyone who comes here seeking help posts their map for showcase. Hell, I haven't even done it, actually thats a lie I did once but the thread got deleted and was reposted by another member and I haven't made a showcase since. I can't speak for everyone but I would think that the vast majority of people join sites to ask for help with something, or if membership is required for downloads and tutorials.


Oh come on, you want to unprotect a map because you feel like being lazy?
Yes triggers like the level up system you described can be tedious and i'm sure all of us have the carpal tunnel to prove it. I'll agree with you on that, that it would make lives easier to copy and paste something of this nature.

However, when someone doesnt understand the logic of a trigger system I fail to see how copying and pasting would help them at all, especially with something like EUD's. How would they know what to do to adapt the system to their map, if they cant even understand how it works on a map its function was intended for?

This is why I said I see your point to an extent. I dont know about you, but I feel better knowing I was the one who created my finished product and didnt have to resort to stealing bits and pieces of other maps. To each his own I guess.

What it all boils down to is, not everyone is honest. Not everyone who downloads this tool is going to use it the way that you guys would like to see it used. If we did decide to host it on the site though, I feel a solution like what wraith has mentioned would be tolerable.

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Dec 2 2012, 6:55 am by staxx.

the issue at hand is purely a matter of pride and face. For the sake of keeping the community together, don't host something that anyone can easily get elsewhere (or even by PMing someone on SEN who already has it).

edit

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 2 2012, 7:48 am by Veta.