Everybody learns in a different way I guess. What works for you might not work for someone else, and what you think doesn't work might work for another person. There's plenty of choices of ways to learn stuff, one of the ways is by stuff thats already been done.

Everybody learns in a different way I guess. What works for you might not work for someone else, and what you think doesn't work might work for another person. There's plenty of choices of ways to learn stuff, one of the ways is by stuff thats already been done.

If they learn by examples of something, I'd be more than happy to make an Example Map of what they want, or give them one of my already made ones. To stop this silly debate is why I started making them.

If they learn by examples of something, I'd be more than happy to make an Example Map of what they want, or give them one of my already made ones. To stop this silly debate is why I started making them.

To the pro OSMAP supporters stop whining because the program isn't supported at SEN. You can still open source without it, and anyone with any real motivation for getting the program can easily find a source, just not here. To the pro protection noobs, you're just dumb because you think your maps need to be protected. The very very small amount of maps that a very very small amount of you make suck and aren't worthy of being stolen. As I said before, the best stance is to not care. Real mapmakers do whatever they want with whatever they want. Someday I might just steal maps out of spite just to because you worry so much about it, and you'll never know it's me. If I was dedicated enough I could elaborately set it up so that I could frame someone else. Even doctor some screenshots, get a group of random people to support the fake evidence, and have someone else present it so I have no connection to it at all. I've already shared such an idea with Moose.

To the pro OSMAP supporters stop whining because the program isn't supported at SEN. You can still open source without it, and anyone with any real motivation for getting the program can easily find a source, just not here.

To the pro protection noobs, you're just dumb because you think your maps need to be protected. The very very small amount of maps that a very very small amount of you make suck and aren't worthy of being stolen.

As I said before, the best stance is to not care. Real mapmakers do whatever they want with whatever they want.

Someday I might just steal maps out of spite just to because you worry so much about it, and you'll never know it's me. If I was dedicated enough I could elaborately set it up so that I could frame someone else. Even doctor some screenshots, get a group of random people to support the fake evidence, and have someone else present it so I have no connection to it at all. I've already shared such an idea with Moose.

My point in all this isnt that all maps need to be protected, zomg. It's that if someone feels Protection is necessary, then that should be respected. As the LEGITIMATE Open Source Mapping philosophy would hold, you only edit someone's map if they give you permission. If someone protects a map, they obviously dont want to give permission, in which case you shouldn't be opening their map anyway. As such, I support the Open Source Mapping philosophy, but I fail to see a legitimate reason Protection cant be a part of it. [QUOTE] To the pro protection noobs, you're just dumb because you think your maps need to be protected. The very very small amount of maps that a very very small amount of you make suck and aren't worthy of being stolen. [/QUOTE] This was clearly just a troll. I mean really. You blatantly call us noobs, call us dumb, and say that our maps all suck. Very good work, devilisk, you sure put forth a compelling, well-backed argument, jam-packed with empirical evidence.

My point in all this isnt that all maps need to be protected, zomg. It's that if someone feels Protection is necessary, then that should be respected.

As the LEGITIMATE Open Source Mapping philosophy would hold, you only edit someone's map if they give you permission.

If someone protects a map, they obviously dont want to give permission, in which case you shouldn't be opening their map anyway.


As such, I support the Open Source Mapping philosophy, but I fail to see a legitimate reason Protection cant be a part of it.

Quote

To the pro protection noobs, you're just dumb because you think your maps need to be protected. The very very small amount of maps that a very very small amount of you make suck and aren't worthy of being stolen.

This was clearly just a troll. I mean really. You blatantly call us noobs, call us dumb, and say that our maps all suck.

Very good work, devilisk, you sure put forth a compelling, well-backed argument, jam-packed with empirical evidence.

Protection was originally made to stop people on B.Net from rigging maps as it was getting awful, OS Map allows us to still share our maps with others, and not have to give them an unprotected version, and it still stops unwanted mapping newbs out.

Protection was originally made to stop people on B.Net from rigging maps as it was getting awful, OS Map allows us to still share our maps with others, and not have to give them an unprotected version, and it still stops unwanted mapping newbs out.

[quote=Protogod] This was clearly just a troll. I mean really. You blatantly call us noobs, call us dumb, and say that our maps all suck. Very good work, devilisk, you sure put forth a compelling, well-backed argument, jam-packed with empirical evidence.[/quote] At least I wasn't discriminating. And [B]all [/B]of you really are noobs, and I mean everyone here at SEN. All the evidence I need is years of SEN history. And yes it was blatant. That was my goal. Also, I might add that you and other melee mappers don't really count in this discussion. No one cares about protection/unprotection in melee maps. At least in my view I see protecting melee maps far different from protecting UMS maps. I don't have a problem with protected melee maps. Since there's really nothing to gain from opening them, because it's just terrain that I can see in a screenshot.

Quote from Protogod

This was clearly just a troll. I mean really. You blatantly call us noobs, call us dumb, and say that our maps all suck.

Very good work, devilisk, you sure put forth a compelling, well-backed argument, jam-packed with empirical evidence.

At least I wasn't discriminating. And all of you really are noobs, and I mean everyone here at SEN. All the evidence I need is years of SEN history.

And yes it was blatant. That was my goal.

Also, I might add that you and other melee mappers don't really count in this discussion. No one cares about protection/unprotection in melee maps. At least in my view I see protecting melee maps far different from protecting UMS maps. I don't have a problem with protected melee maps. Since there's really nothing to gain from opening them, because it's just terrain that I can see in a screenshot.

[quote=devilesk][quote=Protogod] This was clearly just a troll. I mean really. You blatantly call us noobs, call us dumb, and say that our maps all suck. Very good work, devilisk, you sure put forth a compelling, well-backed argument, jam-packed with empirical evidence.[/quote] At least I wasn't discriminating. And [B]all [/B]of you really are noobs, and I mean everyone here at SEN. All the evidence I need is years of SEN history. And yes it was blatant. That was my goal. Also, I might add that you and other melee mappers don't really count in this discussion. No one cares about protection/unprotection in melee maps. At least in my view I see protecting melee maps far different from protecting UMS maps. I don't have a problem with protected melee maps. Since there's really nothing to gain from opening them, because it's just terrain that I can see in a screenshot.[/quote]OK, noob. Oh...we don't count, eh? Just so happens both myself and Proto have made UMS maps in the past and Proto still does. You're like the Kirbyman of SEN. :)

Quote from devilesk

Quote from Protogod

This was clearly just a troll. I mean really. You blatantly call us noobs, call us dumb, and say that our maps all suck.

Very good work, devilisk, you sure put forth a compelling, well-backed argument, jam-packed with empirical evidence.

At least I wasn't discriminating. And all of you really are noobs, and I mean everyone here at SEN. All the evidence I need is years of SEN history.

And yes it was blatant. That was my goal.

Also, I might add that you and other melee mappers don't really count in this discussion. No one cares about protection/unprotection in melee maps. At least in my view I see protecting melee maps far different from protecting UMS maps. I don't have a problem with protected melee maps. Since there's really nothing to gain from opening them, because it's just terrain that I can see in a screenshot.

OK, noob.

Oh...we don't count, eh? Just so happens both myself and Proto have made UMS maps in the past and Proto still does. You're like the Kirbyman of SEN.

[quote=TitanWing]Just so happens both myself and Proto have made UMS maps in the past and Proto still does. [/quote] mainly just to dick around though. I like to dabble in new triggers, but theres nothing truly new out there to make.

Quote from TitanWing

Just so happens both myself and Proto have made UMS maps in the past and Proto still does.

mainly just to dick around though. I like to dabble in new triggers, but theres nothing truly new out there to make.

I still can't get over the "your opinion doesn't matter because I say so".

I still can't get over the "your opinion doesn't matter because I say so".

No, what you fail to understand is that your opinion doesn't matter because this issue doesn't concern melee mapping. Now, if you claim to be UMS mapmakers then you would still fall under the majority of people here who don't really make maps let alone ones that are worthy of being stolen. That is the truth. Also don't misunderstand that I'm saying this just because you support protection. Unprotection supporters also suck at mapmaking. So really as I've said before, there's no point to either of them.

No, what you fail to understand is that your opinion doesn't matter because this issue doesn't concern melee mapping.

Now, if you claim to be UMS mapmakers then you would still fall under the majority of people here who don't really make maps let alone ones that are worthy of being stolen. That is the truth.

Also don't misunderstand that I'm saying this just because you support protection. Unprotection supporters also suck at mapmaking.

So really as I've said before, there's no point to either of them.

You don't even need a screenshot to see the terrain. Just play the map - what a novel idea!

You don't even need a screenshot to see the terrain. Just play the map - what a novel idea!

[QUOTE]No, what you fail to understand is that your opinion doesn't matter because this issue doesn't concern melee mapping. Now, if you claim to be UMS mapmakers then you would still fall under the majority of people here who don't really make maps let alone ones that are worthy of being stolen. That is the truth. Also don't misunderstand that I'm saying this just because you support protection. Unprotection supporters also suck at mapmaking. So really as I've said before, there's no point to either of them.[/QUOTE] Their opinion still counts, they are mappers. I understand that OSMap (and other unprotection programs) have already done their damage. However, I also realize that the people that know about it are dedicated mappers with a good experience. So mostly only the people who are good at mapping know about it. So please lets keep it that way. Let the mappers find it on their own, after they've gone through the experience of mapping, so that they can use it properly. So we don't need to go around slinging OSMap about so everyone knows about it.

Quote

No, what you fail to understand is that your opinion doesn't matter because this issue doesn't concern melee mapping.

Now, if you claim to be UMS mapmakers then you would still fall under the majority of people here who don't really make maps let alone ones that are worthy of being stolen. That is the truth.

Also don't misunderstand that I'm saying this just because you support protection. Unprotection supporters also suck at mapmaking.

So really as I've said before, there's no point to either of them.

Their opinion still counts, they are mappers.

I understand that OSMap (and other unprotection programs) have already done their damage. However, I also realize that the people that know about it are dedicated mappers with a good experience. So mostly only the people who are good at mapping know about it. So please lets keep it that way. Let the mappers find it on their own, after they've gone through the experience of mapping, so that they can use it properly. So we don't need to go around slinging OSMap about so everyone knows about it.

[quote=devilesk]No, what you fail to understand is that your opinion doesn't matter because this issue doesn't concern melee mapping. Now, if you claim to be UMS mapmakers then you would still fall under the majority of people here who don't really make maps let alone ones that are worthy of being stolen. That is the truth.[/quote] So...unless we're pro UMS mappers, we're stupid and don't know anything? Look kid, I don't even see what your point is other than to show everyone how massive your ego is, so either make an argument or stfu. This issue DOES affect melee mapping, and if you get to sit on your "I'm a UMS mapper" pedestal, then I'll stand on my "I'm a melee mapper" pedestal. Unprotection affects all mappers. [quote]Also don't misunderstand that I'm saying this just because you support protection. Unprotection supporters also suck at mapmaking.[/quote]Like yourself? You've basically made everything you said above invalid because only good UMS mappers can talk about his.

Quote from devilesk

No, what you fail to understand is that your opinion doesn't matter because this issue doesn't concern melee mapping.

Now, if you claim to be UMS mapmakers then you would still fall under the majority of people here who don't really make maps let alone ones that are worthy of being stolen. That is the truth.

So...unless we're pro UMS mappers, we're stupid and don't know anything? Look kid, I don't even see what your point is other than to show everyone how massive your ego is, so either make an argument or stfu.

This issue DOES affect melee mapping, and if you get to sit on your "I'm a UMS mapper" pedestal, then I'll stand on my "I'm a melee mapper" pedestal. Unprotection affects all mappers.

Quote

Also don't misunderstand that I'm saying this just because you support protection. Unprotection supporters also suck at mapmaking.

Like yourself? You've basically made everything you said above invalid because only good UMS mappers can talk about his.

I'd hate to feed devilesk's ego but he's one of the few people at SEN that should be discussing this. How many of you can honestly say you've had a successful map that lasted longer than a few days on battle.net. I can only think of Dev, Millenium and possibly Rune and Bolt Head. Don't get me wrong there are really successful maps out there but none of the creater's still play or if they do they don't visit SEN. So his statements sort of do ring true in a very arrogant way. Besides he is neither Pro-Protection or Unprotection he doesn't care either way. I would judge this to be true since he has had minimal influence in this thread until now.

I'd hate to feed devilesk's ego but he's one of the few people at SEN that should be discussing this. How many of you can honestly say you've had a successful map that lasted longer than a few days on battle.net. I can only think of Dev, Millenium and possibly Rune and Bolt Head. Don't get me wrong there are really successful maps out there but none of the creater's still play or if they do they don't visit SEN. So his statements sort of do ring true in a very arrogant way. Besides he is neither Pro-Protection or Unprotection he doesn't care either way. I would judge this to be true since he has had minimal influence in this thread until now.

[quote=TitanWing] So...unless we're pro UMS mappers, we're stupid and don't know anything? Look kid, I don't even see what your point is other than to show everyone how massive your ego is, so either make an argument or stfu.[/quote] If you think this is about ego you're completely missing the point. [quote=TitanWing] This issue DOES affect melee mapping, and if you get to sit on your "I'm a UMS mapper" pedestal, then I'll stand on my "I'm a melee mapper" pedestal. Unprotection affects all mappers.[/quote] Unprotection [B]doesn't[/B] affect all mapmakers. [quote=TitanWing] Like yourself? You've basically made everything you said above invalid because only good UMS mappers can talk about his.[/quote] No.

Quote from TitanWing

So...unless we're pro UMS mappers, we're stupid and don't know anything? Look kid, I don't even see what your point is other than to show everyone how massive your ego is, so either make an argument or stfu.

If you think this is about ego you're completely missing the point.

Quote from TitanWing

This issue DOES affect melee mapping, and if you get to sit on your "I'm a UMS mapper" pedestal, then I'll stand on my "I'm a melee mapper" pedestal. Unprotection affects all mappers.

Unprotection doesn't affect all mapmakers.

Quote from TitanWing

Like yourself? You've basically made everything you said above invalid because only good UMS mappers can talk about his.

No.

[QUOTE]I'd hate to feed devilesk's ego but he's one of the few people at SEN that should be discussing this. How many of you can honestly say you've had a successful map that lasted longer than a few days on battle.net. I can only think of Dev, Millenium and possibly Rune and Bolt Head. Don't get me wrong there are really successful maps out there but none of the creater's still play or if they do they don't visit SEN. So his statements sort of do ring true in a very arrogant way. Besides he is neither Pro-Protection or Unprotection he doesn't care either way. I would judge this to be true since he has had minimal influence in this thread until now.[/QUOTE] Very, very true. Devilesk actually makes maps. They may never get played public because of how bad they are, but he does make actual maps unlike virtually everyone else here. That said, Devilesk's supposed support of OSMAP is a load of bullshit. He protects his maps because he is, in his own words, afraid of people stealing them.

Quote

I'd hate to feed devilesk's ego but he's one of the few people at SEN that should be discussing this. How many of you can honestly say you've had a successful map that lasted longer than a few days on battle.net. I can only think of Dev, Millenium and possibly Rune and Bolt Head. Don't get me wrong there are really successful maps out there but none of the creater's still play or if they do they don't visit SEN. So his statements sort of do ring true in a very arrogant way. Besides he is neither Pro-Protection or Unprotection he doesn't care either way. I would judge this to be true since he has had minimal influence in this thread until now.

Very, very true. Devilesk actually makes maps. They may never get played public because of how bad they are, but he does make actual maps unlike virtually everyone else here.

That said, Devilesk's supposed support of OSMAP is a load of bullshit. He protects his maps because he is, in his own words, afraid of people stealing them.

[quote=Esponeo] Very, very true. Devilesk actually makes maps. They may never get played public because of how bad they are, but he does make actual maps unlike virtually everyone else here. [/quote] Shmidley will never admit my maps are being played publicly, but at least he acknowledges I actually made maps. [quote=Esponeo] That said, Devilesk's supposed support of OSMAP is a load of bullshit. He protects his maps because he is, in his own words, afraid of people stealing them.[/quote] I've always supported OSMAP.exe, but I was never really into open source mapping. I mainly just aligned myself on that side and just agreed to everything LW preached about. LW and I would joke around about how I protected some of my maps while discussing open source. I protect most of my better maps, because they are actually played and various people have actually threatened me with the intent to steal them. Of course protection is really useless against the determined map stealer. However, it's a nice deterrent for the average battle.net noob who decides to open the map in an editor. I've said all of this at one point or another, so it shouldn't be news to anyone [I]important[/I]. However, this doesn't take away from the argument that for the majority of mapmakers protection serves no purpose at all. You can't protect a map you don't even finish or release publicly! And also don't ignore that I've already made a statement before towards the open source side about how they should stop complaining about OSMAP not being hosted. So don't think I'm against protection. I'm against all of you making a big issue out of this when you don't actually have a reason to. If you're going to be supporting open source mapping, actually make some maps that are unprotected. If you're going to be supporting protection, actually make some maps that are protected. All around I'm seeing nothing being made, yet all these people argue about it.

Quote from Esponeo

Very, very true. Devilesk actually makes maps. They may never get played public because of how bad they are, but he does make actual maps unlike virtually everyone else here.

Shmidley will never admit my maps are being played publicly, but at least he acknowledges I actually made maps.

Quote from Esponeo

That said, Devilesk's supposed support of OSMAP is a load of bullshit. He protects his maps because he is, in his own words, afraid of people stealing them.

I've always supported OSMAP.exe, but I was never really into open source mapping. I mainly just aligned myself on that side and just agreed to everything LW preached about. LW and I would joke around about how I protected some of my maps while discussing open source.

I protect most of my better maps, because they are actually played and various people have actually threatened me with the intent to steal them. Of course protection is really useless against the determined map stealer. However, it's a nice deterrent for the average battle.net noob who decides to open the map in an editor. I've said all of this at one point or another, so it shouldn't be news to anyone important.

However, this doesn't take away from the argument that for the majority of mapmakers protection serves no purpose at all. You can't protect a map you don't even finish or release publicly!

And also don't ignore that I've already made a statement before towards the open source side about how they should stop complaining about OSMAP not being hosted. So don't think I'm against protection. I'm against all of you making a big issue out of this when you don't actually have a reason to.

If you're going to be supporting open source mapping, actually make some maps that are unprotected. If you're going to be supporting protection, actually make some maps that are protected. All around I'm seeing nothing being made, yet all these people argue about it.

/me agrees with devilesk. Just let them protect their maps, and since they are such noobs at making maps why would you want to unprotect them?

/me agrees with devilesk. Just let them protect their maps, and since they are such noobs at making maps why would you want to unprotect them?

[quote=Yoshi da Sniper][quote=DT_Battlekruser][color=#b5b5ff]You can also make a very good argument that the world would be much better off without guns. I doubt most Utopian societies envision everyone having guns.[/color][/quote] Or maybe that Utopian society should not have protectors? Unprotection was created because of protection, protection was created because some mappers are paranoid mappers were influenced by a very small group that ruined it for everybody.[/quote] [color=#b5b5ff]Protection hasn't 'ruined' anything. Mappers who wish to make their maps open source can still do so. [quote=Mini Moose 2707][quote=DT_Battlekruser][QUOTE]Do you understand what this means? OSMAP (not the .exe) = Open Source Mapping. A concept. IE, if I WANT to release my map without protection and I WANT other people to edit it, you don't have a right to stop me from doing that just as I don't have a right to edit your locked maps.[/QUOTE] [i]That[/i] is just stupid :...:[/quote] Which part? If all of it, why? Well, if it's only the name, yeah, then I agree it's stupid.[/quote] Yeah, the name :P OSMAP meaning not the program is 100% bullshit.[/color]

Only because Open Source mapping was just an excuse created after OSMAP.exe was made to justify it's use :P

Only because Open Source mapping was just an excuse created after OSMAP.exe was made to justify it's use