LD: All that stuff had a tutorial here on SEN. I know programming with computers is a near infinite-horizon field. Starcraft is not. There are limited amounts of units, sprites, conditions and terrain types. There are a limited number of ways to use them. That's it. There is no solvable problem that hasn't been solved. At least no problems that would have a beneficial outcome.

LD: All that stuff had a tutorial here on SEN.
I know programming with computers is a near infinite-horizon field. Starcraft is not. There are limited amounts of units, sprites, conditions and terrain types. There are a limited number of ways to use them. That's it. There is no solvable problem that hasn't been solved. At least no problems that would have a beneficial outcome.

[quote=frazz]LD: All that stuff had a tutorial here on SEN.[/quote] No it didn't. I know because I was the one who discovered a number of things which weren't in the tutorials database. And no, the tutorials database [i]did not[/i] have all the above mentioned things. There are plenty of problems that have yet to be solved. I'm working on a flexible random spawning system. If you can find a tutorial for that, let me know. I'd be amazed.

Quote from frazz

LD: All that stuff had a tutorial here on SEN.

No it didn't. I know because I was the one who discovered a number of things which weren't in the tutorials database. And no, the tutorials database did not have all the above mentioned things.

There are plenty of problems that have yet to be solved. I'm working on a flexible random spawning system. If you can find a tutorial for that, let me know. I'd be amazed.

What do you even mean by Flexible Random Spawning System?

What do you even mean by Flexible Random Spawning System?

LD: Well, aren't you so special? The point is that the elements of how to program with SC and most SC functions can be databased. This whole arguments is pointless. You win, if you like. I win if you prefer that. Whichever makes you happy. Congratulations.

LD: Well, aren't you so special? The point is that the elements of how to program with SC and most SC functions can be databased.

This whole arguments is pointless. You win, if you like. I win if you prefer that. Whichever makes you happy. Congratulations.

To solve the map protection problem, who says that it has to be possible to decode maps using SC? Wouldn't it make far more sense if you just uploaded the map to B.Net while you were starting, Blizzard "unprotected" it, sends it back to you in a format which SC can decode, and then forces you to delete it after the game? Sure, programs would beable to rip the map, BUT they would have to run WHILE SC is running, so it would actually be a hack, and since you can get your CD-Key banned if its dectected, less people would do it. As less people are willing to do it, the original programs to research the SC algorithms to decode it in the format it is sent back in will be far less advanced, if existant at all. Plus, SC could actually scan your computer to find any of the hacks to remove map protection, and then ban your CD key.

To solve the map protection problem, who says that it has to be possible to decode maps using SC? Wouldn't it make far more sense if you just uploaded the map to B.Net while you were starting, Blizzard "unprotected" it, sends it back to you in a format which SC can decode, and then forces you to delete it after the game?
Sure, programs would beable to rip the map, BUT they would have to run WHILE SC is running, so it would actually be a hack, and since you can get your CD-Key banned if its dectected, less people would do it.
As less people are willing to do it, the original programs to research the SC algorithms to decode it in the format it is sent back in will be far less advanced, if existant at all.
Plus, SC could actually scan your computer to find any of the hacks to remove map protection, and then ban your CD key.

I would prefer a fingerprint/checksum type verification system. Blizzard keeps a database of fingerprints and checksums for registered maps(checksum changes after any map modification, fingerprint is still identifiable), and clients will ask the server to verify the map is legit before starting the game. Registering the map would be optional, but it would be useful for version control.

I would prefer a fingerprint/checksum type verification system. Blizzard keeps a database of fingerprints and checksums for registered maps(checksum changes after any map modification, fingerprint is still identifiable), and clients will ask the server to verify the map is legit before starting the game. Registering the map would be optional, but it would be useful for version control.

Jeez, the game isn't even out yet and we're already talking about how to lock up things we find. And no, blizzard is not going to release a protector with their game.

Jeez, the game isn't even out yet and we're already talking about how to lock up things we find.

And no, blizzard is not going to release a protector with their game.

YOSHI DA SNIPER!!!!! Are you even gonna look at that mafia game? Anyway, I agree with the above statement, Blizzard will just force users to make it. Although I think a Bnet based protection system would be the best.

YOSHI DA SNIPER!!!!! Are you even gonna look at that mafia game?

Anyway, I agree with the above statement, Blizzard will just force users to make it.
Although I think a Bnet based protection system would be the best.

[QUOTE]YOSHI DA SNIPER!!!!! Are you even gonna look at that mafia game?[/QUOTE]Tommorow I'll look. [QUOTE]Anyway, I agree with the above statement, Blizzard will just force users to make it.[/QUOTE]"Force users to make it". Blizzard isn't forcing anything. If they were forcing anything, they'd be forcing you all to leave your maps open. [QUOTE]Although I think a Bnet based protection system would be the best.[/QUOTE]Better yet, a system that allows authors to preserve their name on the map.

Quote

YOSHI DA SNIPER!!!!! Are you even gonna look at that mafia game?

Tommorow I'll look.

Quote

Anyway, I agree with the above statement, Blizzard will just force users to make it.

"Force users to make it". Blizzard isn't forcing anything. If they were forcing anything, they'd be forcing you all to leave your maps open.

Quote

Although I think a Bnet based protection system would be the best.

Better yet, a system that allows authors to preserve their name on the map.

I suggested something like that, a map registration system based on checksum and fingerprint, for version control. It would not even need encryption(unless you are authenticating a change to the registration). Basically the fingerprint would hit on even incomplete matches to a map(there would be some threshold based system, but it would be more than enough to make a hit on anything that was just rigged or had the name changed), while the checksum, only to complete matches. Depending on the registration options, any unauthorized modified version of the map would be limited to private games, or banned from bnet, or just require a title change and preservation of original credits.

I suggested something like that, a map registration system based on checksum and fingerprint, for version control. It would not even need encryption(unless you are authenticating a change to the registration). Basically the fingerprint would hit on even incomplete matches to a map(there would be some threshold based system, but it would be more than enough to make a hit on anything that was just rigged or had the name changed), while the checksum, only to complete matches. Depending on the registration options, any unauthorized modified version of the map would be limited to private games, or banned from bnet, or just require a title change and preservation of original credits.

What you suggest would basically kill mapping as most of the best maps on battle.net were edited. Blizzard would never do it.

What you suggest would basically kill mapping as most of the best maps on battle.net were edited. Blizzard would never do it.

[quote=Yoshi da Sniper]Better yet, a system that allows authors to preserve their name on the map.[/quote] I hardly care about that, since most maps are edited by people intending to make them better. The worst thing is when they rig it and everybody in the game thinks it's so cool to use the cheat to make the game insanely easy. If it were possible, I'd like a system where maps are uploaded, and if approved (by a group of people, or the community, I don't know) are given a sort of "permanent" status, in which only the originator can upload new versions to. Other people can still edit the map, but if it's not approved (either for being an illegit copy, or for being way too sucky) it lacks some sort of "APPROVED" stamp in the game list. This means you can tell when lamewad copies from real ones.

Quote from Yoshi da Sniper

Better yet, a system that allows authors to preserve their name on the map.

I hardly care about that, since most maps are edited by people intending to make them better. The worst thing is when they rig it and everybody in the game thinks it's so cool to use the cheat to make the game insanely easy.

If it were possible, I'd like a system where maps are uploaded, and if approved (by a group of people, or the community, I don't know) are given a sort of "permanent" status, in which only the originator can upload new versions to. Other people can still edit the map, but if it's not approved (either for being an illegit copy, or for being way too sucky) it lacks some sort of "APPROVED" stamp in the game list. This means you can tell when lamewad copies from real ones.

I am suggesting it to preempt traditional map protection. All blizzard would have to do is set the fingerprint to hit if over 85% of the map is unaltered, or any other arbitrary number, there could even be a sliding scale.

I am suggesting it to preempt traditional map protection. All blizzard would have to do is set the fingerprint to hit if over 85% of the map is unaltered, or any other arbitrary number, there could even be a sliding scale.

[quote] I hardly care about that, since most maps are edited by people intending to make them better. The worst thing is when they rig it and everybody in the game thinks it's so cool to use the cheat to make the game insanely easy. [/quote] That used to be common when SC was in its early years because alot of elementary/middle schoolers had the game too. They were immature, and used alot of curse words, thinkin it was 'cool'. I was actually one of them too. SC2 will be a new game for all those people. It's only gonna be rated [b]Teen[/b] while 10 year olds are getting Halo. I am not going to be surprised when there are people on B.net with horrid logic and alot of maps that were rigged or filled with units and changed maker names.

Quote

I hardly care about that, since most maps are edited by people intending to make them better. The worst thing is when they rig it and everybody in the game thinks it's so cool to use the cheat to make the game insanely easy.

That used to be common when SC was in its early years because alot of elementary/middle schoolers had the game too. They were immature, and used alot of curse words, thinkin it was 'cool'. I was actually one of them too.

SC2 will be a new game for all those people. It's only gonna be rated Teen while 10 year olds are getting Halo. I am not going to be surprised when there are people on B.net with horrid logic and alot of maps that were rigged or filled with units and changed maker names.

I am pushing for a registered map setting, let the noobs rig their maps, and play on unregistered.

I am pushing for a registered map setting, let the noobs rig their maps, and play on unregistered.

[quote=BeDazed]SC2 will be a new game for all those people. It's only gonna be rated [b]Teen[/b] while 10 year olds are getting Halo. I am not going to be surprised when there are people on B.net with horrid logic and alot of maps that were rigged or filled with units and changed maker names.[/quote] Have you played UMS's lately? The future is now. [QUOTE=AntiSleep]I am suggesting it to preempt traditional map protection. All blizzard would have to do is set the fingerprint to hit if over 85% of the map is unaltered, or any other arbitrary number, there could even be a sliding scale. [/QUOTE] 85%? It only takes one trigger to completely trash a map.

Quote from BeDazed

SC2 will be a new game for all those people. It's only gonna be rated Teen while 10 year olds are getting Halo. I am not going to be surprised when there are people on B.net with horrid logic and alot of maps that were rigged or filled with units and changed maker names.

Have you played UMS's lately? The future is now.

Quote from AntiSleep

I am suggesting it to preempt traditional map protection. All blizzard would have to do is set the fingerprint to hit if over 85% of the map is unaltered, or any other arbitrary number, there could even be a sliding scale.

85%? It only takes one trigger to completely trash a map.

[quote=frazz] [QUOTE=AntiSleep]I am suggesting it to preempt traditional map protection. All blizzard would have to do is set the fingerprint to hit if over 85% of the map is unaltered, or any other arbitrary number, there could even be a sliding scale. [/QUOTE] 85%? It only takes one trigger to completely trash a map.[/quote] What is the problem? If there is an unauthorized copy of a map with 1 trigger changed, the fingerprint would hit. The checksum would not, and the map would not be registered.

Quote from frazz

Quote from AntiSleep

I am suggesting it to preempt traditional map protection. All blizzard would have to do is set the fingerprint to hit if over 85% of the map is unaltered, or any other arbitrary number, there could even be a sliding scale.

85%? It only takes one trigger to completely trash a map.

What is the problem? If there is an unauthorized copy of a map with 1 trigger changed, the fingerprint would hit. The checksum would not, and the map would not be registered.

Everyone laughing at protection being needed (or vice versa), shut your yaps. I'm pretty sure just about everyone here knows of the whole debate, is sick of it, and this isn't the thread to pour it out in (I'm a professional vigilante!). I really hope they implement it. I wasn't aware of an innate unprotector in WCIII, but I think Blizzard will improve upon it even more in SCII. You'll notice that there's no full-fledged secondary editor for WCIII, because of how much more complicated it would be than the SC one (different units, models, sounds, JASS, GUI -> JASS translation, terrain/doodad options, etc), and that there are much less unprotectors, if any. I think most are manually done by professionals. I think that this will continue with SCII, improving security and web standards.

Everyone laughing at protection being needed (or vice versa), shut your yaps. I'm pretty sure just about everyone here knows of the whole debate, is sick of it, and this isn't the thread to pour it out in (I'm a professional vigilante!).

I really hope they implement it. I wasn't aware of an innate unprotector in WCIII, but I think Blizzard will improve upon it even more in SCII. You'll notice that there's no full-fledged secondary editor for WCIII, because of how much more complicated it would be than the SC one (different units, models, sounds, JASS, GUI -> JASS translation, terrain/doodad options, etc), and that there are much less unprotectors, if any. I think most are manually done by professionals. I think that this will continue with SCII, improving security and web standards.

Actually, there are no alternative editors because the map editor was so awesome.

Actually, there are no alternative editors because the map editor was so awesome.

[quote=frazz]I just started thinking about protection for SC2. I think we can all agree that protection is crucial to the stability of maps in Starcraft. The question is, will Blizzard make a map protection system, or will players have to make their own; and if Blizzard makes a map protection system, will it be unbreakable? Will it only be a matter of time before OSMap 2 comes out?[/quote] How about I go download HexEdit, and unprotect your map that way? Oh wait, even better! I'll protect your map that way, too! After cracking it with HexEdit. Glorious. My point being, protection and unprotection programs are essentially programs that fuck around with the Hex in the .chk file for people who don't know anything about that kind of stuff. Back before there were unprotectors and protectors (hell, back when SCMDraft 1 was in its alpha and beta stages) I'd watch DrunkenWrestler do some amazing things by Hexediting his maps. He even protected them through HexEdit. So to continue this rather redundant discussion about protection and unprotection is pretty inane in my opinion.. Just go DL HexEdit, and google-research about the .chk files and what parts do what for the maps, then learn how to protect, edit (place things like hidden doodads [that SCMDraft2 and StarForge do for you]) and unprotect your maps with HexEdit if you really want to continue whining about it. There was no need for protection back in the early days of Starcraft, because everyone knew who the real creators of the maps were. Then noobs came along. Which is totally fine. If they would have changed maps to [i]learn[/i], instead of steal. So can Staredit.net please shut the fuck up about protection vs. unprotection already? Go do some HexEditing, noobs :P [quote=Centreri]Everyone laughing at protection being needed (or vice versa), shut your yaps. I'm pretty sure just about everyone here knows of the whole debate, is sick of it, and this isn't the thread to pour it out in (I'm a professional vigilante!). I really hope they implement it. I wasn't aware of an innate unprotector in WCIII, but I think Blizzard will improve upon it even more in SCII. You'll notice that there's no full-fledged secondary editor for WCIII, because of how much more complicated it would be than the SC one (different units, models, sounds, JASS, GUI -> JASS translation, terrain/doodad options, etc), and that there are much less unprotectors, if any. I think most are manually done by professionals. I think that this will continue with SCII, improving security and web standards.[/quote] More then likely (I hope), the SCII editor will be as flexible (if not more) than the WCIII editor... So there will probibly be no need for 3rd party editors at all, because you'll be able to do [i]anything[/i] with the SCII editor if they make it like the WCIII editor.

Quote from frazz

I just started thinking about protection for SC2. I think we can all agree that protection is crucial to the stability of maps in Starcraft. The question is, will Blizzard make a map protection system, or will players have to make their own; and if Blizzard makes a map protection system, will it be unbreakable? Will it only be a matter of time before OSMap 2 comes out?

How about I go download HexEdit, and unprotect your map that way?

Oh wait, even better! I'll protect your map that way, too! After cracking it with HexEdit.


Glorious.





My point being, protection and unprotection programs are essentially programs that fuck around with the Hex in the .chk file for people who don't know anything about that kind of stuff.

Back before there were unprotectors and protectors (hell, back when SCMDraft 1 was in its alpha and beta stages) I'd watch DrunkenWrestler do some amazing things by Hexediting his maps.

He even protected them through HexEdit.


So to continue this rather redundant discussion about protection and unprotection is pretty inane in my opinion.. Just go DL HexEdit, and google-research about the .chk files and what parts do what for the maps, then learn how to protect, edit (place things like hidden doodads [that SCMDraft2 and StarForge do for you]) and unprotect your maps with HexEdit if you really want to continue whining about it.


There was no need for protection back in the early days of Starcraft, because everyone knew who the real creators of the maps were. Then noobs came along.

Which is totally fine. If they would have changed maps to learn, instead of steal.




So can Staredit.net please shut the fuck up about protection vs. unprotection already?

Go do some HexEditing, noobs

Quote from Centreri

Everyone laughing at protection being needed (or vice versa), shut your yaps. I'm pretty sure just about everyone here knows of the whole debate, is sick of it, and this isn't the thread to pour it out in (I'm a professional vigilante!).

I really hope they implement it. I wasn't aware of an innate unprotector in WCIII, but I think Blizzard will improve upon it even more in SCII. You'll notice that there's no full-fledged secondary editor for WCIII, because of how much more complicated it would be than the SC one (different units, models, sounds, JASS, GUI -> JASS translation, terrain/doodad options, etc), and that there are much less unprotectors, if any. I think most are manually done by professionals. I think that this will continue with SCII, improving security and web standards.

More then likely (I hope), the SCII editor will be as flexible (if not more) than the WCIII editor...


So there will probibly be no need for 3rd party editors at all, because you'll be able to do anything with the SCII editor if they make it like the WCIII editor.