Suggestion: Read-only maps

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by Darvin

How is this uncrackable? It's anything but! The moment the creator makes his map available for the public to play, they can download it. Once they download the map, it can be cracked. The moment the map is playable by the public, it can be cracked, end of story. Once they've cracked it, they just change the file name and upload it on their own account.


I don't see how attaching the map to an account would change this. If the map creator didn't provide his account to someone else the map is still "dead". In both my case and your's, the map maker must provide the unprotected version to his successor in some fashion. In my case, by giving them a version of the map that is not set to read-only, and in your case by giving access via his account.

You've misread my point I believe. The point is that the map itself is not 'protected' in the sense you are thinking, the method of protection is simply the fact that there is a way to KNOW who the original creator is - as far as continuing afterward if the creator is to disappear, eventually the community will have to decide for itself which map maker that picks up the map if there are more than one.

There is no physical 'protection' it is solely the ability to look up the original creator in a database that is complete that keeps track of dates. Thus the community has the available knowledge to KNOW the original creator, that's all we'll need. It is the then as simple as only playing versions that you know are legit, which isn't terribly hard if you meet all the criteria regarding font/characters I laid out earlier.

Originally Posted by OrcSlayer

why have read-only maps that way you would get loads of dead maps like somone said and instead have an original uploader and last uploader so people will know that a map is just a copy

Glad someone understands my point.

[jecjoker]

I thought I had this solved! Last post should anser the whole mess the rest is up to the developers if osmeoen copies and changes name they just may lose there accnt or something after proven thier map was stolen

[Darvin]

the method of protection is simply the fact that there is a way to KNOW who the original creator is - as far as continuing afterward if the creator is to disappear

Then this isn't exactly on topic. This thread is specifically about map protection in stopping people from easily copying a map (ie, a read-only flag). Of course an online database with timestamp will allow for a community-driven authentication process, but it won't stop people from creating their own edited versions of popular maps. I'm talking about apples, you're talking about oranges.

why have read-only maps that way you would get loads of dead maps like somone said and instead have an original uploader and last uploader so people will know that a map is just a copy

A) People can always create their own maps from scratch. User-driven content will always ensure there is something new.
B) Any system will invariably be cracked. As I wrote initially, a read-only flag would effectively keep out thirteen year old kids who want to add cheats or a super-power unit to their favourite map. Anyone with real sophistication would crack it in a heartbeat.

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by Darvin

Then this isn't exactly on topic. This thread is specifically about map protection in stopping people from easily copying a map (ie, a read-only flag). Of course an online database with timestamp will allow for a community-driven authentication process, but it won't stop people from creating their own edited versions of popular maps. I'm talking about apples, you're talking about oranges.


A) People can always create their own maps from scratch. User-driven content will always ensure there is something new.
B) Any system will invariably be cracked. As I wrote initially, a read-only flag would effectively keep out thirteen year old kids who want to add cheats or a super-power unit to their favourite map. Anyone with real sophistication would crack it in a heartbeat.

It IS on topic as it totally supersedes the need for protection. People aren't going to play bootlegged versions over a legit when they know exactly which are legit and which aren't. Using everything I've laid out someone 'stealing' a map and changing it for whatever reason, it won't matter at all. Nobody will play it. The reason people play maps that aren't legit on say, battlenet. Is because there is no clear way of telling which is and isn't, there is no central database, there are 5-6 with different uploaders and names etc. then there's the directly from bnet itself. All that a central database needs is a little bit of bandwidth to host everything and it lets the community know what is legit and what isn't, and gives them an easy way to GET the legit so it's not too much of a hassle that they'll play the bootlegged version anyway.

[Darvin]

Using everything I've laid out someone 'stealing' a map and changing it for whatever reason, it won't matter at all. Nobody will play it.

The person who "stole" the map will play it, as will those who join his game (either naively or inattentively) and automatically download the modified map. Also people who don't bother to check if the version they're playing is made by the "real" author.

I'm not arguing against you here. I totally agree a community-driven process is the only real solution. However, I still think there are three good arguments why a read-only flag complements it well:

1) As mentioned, it gets rid of little kids with little sophistication who may flood both the database with bootleg versions of the map, a convenience for everyone involved.
2) Regardless of what community-based solutions are approached, some people will want map "protection". If Reverie doesn't offer it in their map editor, they will find a way to achieve this using third party programs.
3) It makes it explicit whether a player approves or disapproves others modifying his map.

[Josh Warner]

Originally Posted by Darvin

The person who "stole" the map will play it, as will those who join his game (either naively or inattentively) and automatically download the modified map. Also people who don't bother to check if the version they're playing is made by the "real" author.

I'm not arguing against you here. I totally agree a community-driven process is the only real solution. However, I still think there are three good arguments why a read-only flag complements it well:

1) As mentioned, it gets rid of little kids with little sophistication who may flood both the database with bootleg versions of the map, a convenience for everyone involved.
2) Regardless of what community-based solutions are approached, some people will want map "protection". If Reverie doesn't offer it in their map editor, they will find a way to achieve this using third party programs.
3) It makes it explicit whether a player approves or disapproves others modifying his map.

I wouldn't call it arguing at all, there's little to discuss until the new update, might as well discuss this until then.

1) It should get to the point where people get a popular map from the database as soon as it's updated, and only play totally new maps or ones they have. As a rule on battlenet for example, I know all the games I like, and I have the official versions from the original creators for them, if I select a game of one of these and I don't have the map, I simply pass it by knowing it's likely some child's editing. Everyone should be like this, it's part of the community's responsibility to keep rubbish like theft under control.

2) Which is perfectly understandable, if the desire is so strong that they're either corrupting it or they implement this, I'd prefer a read-only of course. However I think the focus should be on making it so that the reasons that people want to protect their map are mitigated. The ability to be able to tell who/when a map is uploaded goes a long way, the inevitably smaller community this game will have will also help.

3) To be fair that takes little more than a little text somewhere in the editor.

I don't believe read-only is needed, the cons for me outweigh the positives. I've seen too many maps discontinued over the years because of people protecting their work.

[Aametherar]

Haeso I agree on the map theft point. I hadnt played wcIII in like a year+ came back seeing everyone play arena nexus version 1.11 and everyone i joined it tried to download the map, so I just started creating my own, at first everyone had to download it, now its about 50/50, so that's better than 100% rigged maps out there. But there's also other issues to consider I agree, for example there's several maps in wcIII that I liked, but the triggers were buggy/didn't work right so I edited them and fixed them, or even completely rewrote them cause I liked the maps, while giving full credit to original author except bug fixing to myself. That's something to consider too. If there's 1 thing I hate, it's dead buggy maps.