Well, I sure hope there aren't any costs to join contests for a while. I don't think I would have positive minerals for a while. BTW, I really don't care much for images in signatures, it just makes the site load a lot slower, especially if you are using slow internet. Is there an option to disable images in signatures of other users? I don't mean, disable signatures, just the [ img ] tags in the signature, just don't have them changed? Make them as a link to a new page maybe?

Well, I sure hope there aren't any costs to join contests for a while. I don't think I would have positive minerals for a while.

BTW, I really don't care much for images in signatures, it just makes the site load a lot slower, especially if you are using slow internet.

Is there an option to disable images in signatures of other users?
I don't mean, disable signatures, just the [ img ] tags in the signature, just don't have them changed? Make them as a link to a new page maybe?

[QUOTE]Avatars are used so you can easily tell who is who by the image they have under their name, since these forum tables aren't so great it's hard to read the name so avatars are needed.[/QUOTE] Agreed, the forums have an overall BLAH look to them right now. And until then we are in [B]need[/B] of avatars. I also think we should get avatars free of charge; only having to pay minerals for avatars you offer on the site. I'm fine with having to pay for sigs... I suppose. [QUOTE]I don't want noobs spamming the dldb for minerals[/QUOTE] Of course not, but you shouldn't want noobs spamming the forums for them either (although it's not as bad). We need more moderation... soon. [QUOTE]So you don't (or at least, shouldn't) get minerals in Null, but you do in Games, Discussion Forums, Map Making Progress, Map Making help etc. And if the greatest map makers don't post a lot, well I doubt signatures are a big deal for them[/QUOTE] I thought that null gave no minerals already? If not, that needs to be fixed. The Null Forum has nothing but spam, essentially. It deserves no minerals for any posting. As for the rest of it, perhaps give more minerals to activity in mapmaking forums than other off-topic ones. Like... I don't know how it works now, but for instance, +1 minerals for off-topic post, +2 for a mapmaking post. Before I go, I would also like to say I'm stunned no one realized we had the "disable fun" feature, seeing as how it was front and center on the front page for so long. People should be more obliged to keep up with the community and news if they want to have the privilege of using the site, and spamming it for minerals in some cases. (this isn't refering to anyone specifically in this thread, you may have you own reasons for not having seen it) If I spent more time posting everywhere instead of keeping up with the community developments, I'd be a lot better off in minerals, which is obviously wrong. Too bad there isn't much that can be done about that. It might be good to [B]consider[/B] a correspendace between how many minerals are given for a post and how long the post is, if that isn't done already. [QUOTE]Also, don't expect posting to forever be the only viable way to get minerals. That's going to change in the future.[/QUOTE] This is of utter importance. :P Other than that, I'll say that I could give a shit about magic boxes.

Quote

Avatars are used so you can easily tell who is who by the image they have under their name, since these forum tables aren't so great it's hard to read the name so avatars are needed.

Agreed, the forums have an overall BLAH look to them right now. And until then we are in need of avatars. I also think we should get avatars free of charge; only having to pay minerals for avatars you offer on the site. I'm fine with having to pay for sigs... I suppose.

Quote

I don't want noobs spamming the dldb for minerals

Of course not, but you shouldn't want noobs spamming the forums for them either (although it's not as bad). We need more moderation... soon.

Quote

So you don't (or at least, shouldn't) get minerals in Null, but you do in Games, Discussion Forums, Map Making Progress, Map Making help etc. And if the greatest map makers don't post a lot, well I doubt signatures are a big deal for them

I thought that null gave no minerals already? If not, that needs to be fixed. The Null Forum has nothing but spam, essentially. It deserves no minerals for any posting. As for the rest of it, perhaps give more minerals to activity in mapmaking forums than other off-topic ones. Like... I don't know how it works now, but for instance, +1 minerals for off-topic post, +2 for a mapmaking post.

Before I go, I would also like to say I'm stunned no one realized we had the "disable fun" feature, seeing as how it was front and center on the front page for so long. People should be more obliged to keep up with the community and news if they want to have the privilege of using the site, and spamming it for minerals in some cases. (this isn't refering to anyone specifically in this thread, you may have you own reasons for not having seen it) If I spent more time posting everywhere instead of keeping up with the community developments, I'd be a lot better off in minerals, which is obviously wrong. Too bad there isn't much that can be done about that. It might be good to consider a correspendace between how many minerals are given for a post and how long the post is, if that isn't done already.

Quote

Also, don't expect posting to forever be the only viable way to get minerals. That's going to change in the future.

This is of utter importance.

Other than that, I'll say that I could give a shit about magic boxes.

Null probably doesn't I'm just too lazy to check.

Null probably doesn't I'm just too lazy to check.

To anyone still posting about avatars: Read the news. Thanks.

To anyone still posting about avatars: Read the news. Thanks.

[quote=isolatedpurity]Not automatic minerals for content subscription... I don't want noobs spamming the dldb for minerals :dontgetit: But for reviews, maybe a "this review deserves some damn minerals" system... and then we'll look at it and be like "hell yeahz."[/quote] I think that giving out minerals for maps would work if they received the minerals once the DLDB keeper approved them. If your map is good, then you get minerals. If you try to spam the DLDB for more minerals, you get banned.

Quote from isolatedpurity

Not automatic minerals for content subscription...
I don't want noobs spamming the dldb for minerals

But for reviews, maybe a "this review deserves some damn minerals" system... and then we'll look at it and be like "hell yeahz."

I think that giving out minerals for maps would work if they received the minerals once the DLDB keeper approved them. If your map is good, then you get minerals. If you try to spam the DLDB for more minerals, you get banned.

Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that. Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/

Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that.

Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/

[quote=Mini Moose 2707]Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that. Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/[/quote] No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that.

Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/

No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?

They don't get stopped from entering. They get kicked out after they're in.

They don't get stopped from entering. They get kicked out after they're in.

[quote=FatalException][quote=Mini Moose 2707]Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that. Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/[/quote] No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?[/quote] You simply report them like a knowledgable person and download maps that have a good word of mouth.

Quote from FatalException

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that.

Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/

No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?

You simply report them like a knowledgable person and download maps that have a good word of mouth.

[quote=A_of-s_t][quote=FatalException][quote=Mini Moose 2707]Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that. Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/[/quote] No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?[/quote] You simply report them like a knowledgable person and download maps that have a good word of mouth.[/quote] Sounds like a plan to me.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from FatalException

Quote from Mini Moose 2707

Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that.

Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/

No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?

You simply report them like a knowledgable person and download maps that have a good word of mouth.

Sounds like a plan to me.

[quote=A_of-s_t][quote=FatalException][quote=Mini Moose 2707]Lol, "DLDB Keeper Approval". Not having that. Anyway, there won't be automated minerals for submissions. Otherwise, everyone will just unload their downloads directory into the DLDB. :/[/quote] No DLDB keepers on v5? Then how will all the crap-maps be stopped from entering?[/quote] You simply report them like a knowledgable person and download maps that have a good word of mouth.[/quote] [color=#b5b5ff]In my professional opinion, there will be somewhat of a deluge of reports. The average denial rate while I was actively doing the v4 DLDB was about 28% (approx. 280 in 1000 files). [QUOTE]As for the rest of it, perhaps give more minerals to activity in mapmaking forums than other off-topic ones. Like... I don't know how it works now, but for instance, +1 minerals for off-topic post, +2 for a mapmaking post.[/QUOTE] It's like that. Much more complex, but very like that.[/color]

My idea of a democratically ran DLDB was shattered by Moose with a reply "NO MRRLL, YOUR CONTRACT OF DLDB SLAVING ISN'T OVER YET, BUB." But anyway, I like the 'automatically-accepted' idea, since 9/10 of the maps I tested in v4 were accepted anyway. If people think the map is misplaced or shouldn't even be in the DLDB, then they'll report it and the DLDB manager will take care of it. I guess that's how Moose/IP are planning it anyway.

My idea of a democratically ran DLDB was shattered by Moose with a reply "NO MRRLL, YOUR CONTRACT OF DLDB SLAVING ISN'T OVER YET, BUB." But anyway, I like the 'automatically-accepted' idea, since 9/10 of the maps I tested in v4 were accepted anyway. If people think the map is misplaced or shouldn't even be in the DLDB, then they'll report it and the DLDB manager will take care of it. I guess that's how Moose/IP are planning it anyway.

[color=#b5b5ff]Granted.. I'll say about 70% of the denials I had to make were based on technical issues, most often that the map was submitted within a corrupted ZIP archive, or the scenario file itself was corrupted.[/color]

And having it automated (with OS Map, of course) would get rid of corrupted files anyway.

And having it automated (with OS Map, of course) would get rid of corrupted files anyway.

[quote=DT_Battlekruser][color=#b5b5ff]Granted.. I'll say about 70% of the denials I had to make were based on technical issues, most often that the map was submitted within a corrupted ZIP archive, or the scenario file itself was corrupted.[/color][/quote] Speaking of .zips, can we like totally prevent anyone from uploading a zipped map? They only compress Starcraft maps to like 98% of the original file size, and most maps take two seconds, IF THAT, to download anyway. Zips are however useful for mods.

Quote from DT_Battlekruser

Granted.. I'll say about 70% of the denials I had to make were based on technical issues, most often that the map was submitted within a corrupted ZIP archive, or the scenario file itself was corrupted.

Speaking of .zips, can we like totally prevent anyone from uploading a zipped map? They only compress Starcraft maps to like 98% of the original file size, and most maps take two seconds, IF THAT, to download anyway. Zips are however useful for mods.

the .MPQ compression is incredibly efficient, so packing your map in a .zip is pointless, as is packing your mod. However, most mods contain readmes, and or multiple files, in which case .ZIPs are incredibly useful.

the .MPQ compression is incredibly efficient, so packing your map in a .zip is pointless, as is packing your mod. However, most mods contain readmes, and or multiple files, in which case .ZIPs are incredibly useful.

[quote=Merrell][quote=DT_Battlekruser][color=#b5b5ff]Granted.. I'll say about 70% of the denials I had to make were based on technical issues, most often that the map was submitted within a corrupted ZIP archive, or the scenario file itself was corrupted.[/color][/quote] Speaking of .zips, can we like totally prevent anyone from uploading a zipped map? They only compress Starcraft maps to like 98% of the original file size, and most maps take two seconds, IF THAT, to download anyway. Zips are however useful for mods.[/quote] [color=#b5b5ff]I was trying to push that one from the second I got irritated at the clicks involving unzipping stuff :p Hopefully the new DLDB will implement the Maplantis-esque data extraction, which would eliminate many of these issues.[/color]

I really don't want .zips for single map files... But I could completely understand why someone would want to attach a .txt to a zip file along with their map. Creators like to do that.

I really don't want .zips for single map files...
But I could completely understand why someone would want to attach a .txt to a zip file along with their map.
Creators like to do that.

[color=#b5b5ff]Believe me, all the ZIPs I saw only contained the scenario file :P[/color]

Putting a file in a .zip folder makes it download faster. For us privileged with high speed downloads it makes difference but there are still people with dial-up who appreciate the ability of downloading large maps with a lot of sound files faster.

Putting a file in a .zip folder makes it download faster. For us privileged with high speed downloads it makes difference but there are still people with dial-up who appreciate the ability of downloading large maps with a lot of sound files faster.