Map Restoration Guild!

[Xeryxoz]

Map Restoration Guild is basically a suggestion for HiveWorkShop's Staff to consider - A section for capable and trustworthy individuals to ask and contribute their skill in restoring lost maps. The general idea is to have an inquiry box for maps that have been affected by Blizzard Patches, Restoration Zone for those working on restoring a map, as well as a separate Map Section for 'Restored Maps'.

(Edit: I don't know what head-boggling I did, but that one paragraph was completely a doozy)

Allow me to explain what this site expansion is supposed to do:
-A map maker would have to upload two same maps.
-One map is out for the public, an encrypted one to ward off plagiarism. (We all know Loap)
-The second map is visible to staff only, not encrypted as to act as a failsafe (Blizzard Incoming!)

On the offchance a Blizzard Patch breaks certain maps, hive members can make an Inquiry in the Restoration Guild. After the Inquiry - the Hive Staff would check if the map really does need restoration. If it does, the task will be handed down to a trusted individual of the hive community who has applied to be part of the Restoration Guild. Their goal is to simply make the map work with the new patch, and from thereafter their job is done.

Who are these trusted folk? Highly-valued individuals with superb knowledge within the trigger editor. Such individuals are, for example, TriggerHappy - who leaves his insight, lends a hand on several occasions, makes content that can be used by others, and has a reputation that backs him up.

What are the benefits? Reputation for your activity and contribution. Anything else is on the discretion of the Staff.

When should the Guild Intervene? When a map maker has been gone for an extended period of time without a word of hiatus. If someone hasn't logged in for 3 days, it doesn't mean the guild needs to fix the map, though if it's 3 or more months, then naturally the restoration guild could have some work on their plate.

 

[Ralle]

This sounds great but. I have a few requirements.

1. Clear proof of patience and attempts to contact author (with our help as we have their email at hand too)
2. The published updated version is not protected.
3. The published version has very clear information of who built the map and smaller information of who restored it.
4. The restored version should stay as close to original as possible with as few edits needed.

If you are thinking of created a 'reforged' version with all updated models and such, I feel like this is a different venture than just making the map work.

 

[tulee]

This is not a well thought-out idea. If there are maps that are not working, and assuming the author gives permission/is unable to be contacted, then people can upload the map into the comments section and then ask map reviewers to just add a link to the version that is compatible with the latest wc3 version into the map description.
Example from "Return of the Dragon" campaign:
Nature's Call - Return of the Dragon

Author was unable to contacted, so the map reviewer just added the link to a 1.29+ compatible version that another user uploaded to the comments.

It is best to avoid uploading multiple versions of maps to hive, even if only staff can see the duplicate.

The request section can be used to ask for people to help restore maps if the author is willing/has been not contactable for XXX amount of years, and then just explain it to a map reviewer, who will make a decision whether to add it or not, so the link can be added in the map description to the version that has been uploaded by a user (best to be in the comment section, so all people can publicly see it even without a link to it).

3 months is not even a long time, it would need years of there not being any way to contact an author before anything should be done. And even then, it should only be added as a link in the map description, not as a separate file.

 

[chobibo]

How about the one who 'fixes' the map upload the edited triggers which would get evaluated by the community? I think beginners, with ample knowledge, shouldn't be barred from doing these stuff. Think of it as a way of passing the baton (and as an exercise/training) to the newer generation of modders.

 

[Xeryxoz]

This sounds great but. I have a few requirements.

1. Clear proof of patience and attempts to contact author (with our help as we have their email at hand too)
2. The published updated version is not protected.
3. The published version has very clear information of who built the map and smaller information of who restored it.
4. The restored version should stay as close to original as possible with as few edits needed.

If you are thinking of created a 'reforged' version with all updated models and such, I feel like this is a different venture than just making the map work.

To answer all those points, the restored version is supposed to be just that - a restoration that has absolutely no changes other than to make the map function. When it breaks, it's always because of script changes, so naturally, that is the only thing being changed. The author's name will still be there, as well as the intent and balances he made. (Meaning the third and fourth point are respected)

I do have to point out, the second point you've made is a tad bit unreasonable. If the map maker encrypted his public work, it should stay like that even in the future (And vice versa for works that are not encrypted - if it's passed down, the work ought not to be encrypted. This is just a personal opinion though, take it as you will.

The first point, I agree completely. All efforts should be made to contact the owner in question - though a point was missed. By giving the hive staff an unencrypted map, the owner also puts his trust in the Hive. What I mean by this is - he's giving permission to the staff to chose who would be able to look into his work and do one specific thing: restore his work in the offchance it is lost to patching; which brings us back to point three and four - the people assigned to the job are simply tinkering the scripts that are broken by Blizzard's side until they work as they should.

-The restored versions are simply put into 2 departments - a 'restored' section (Where the public release goes) within the maps section (sort of like how there's a 'substandard' section in the model section), and a Staff-Only section (Maps which were given permission for restoration by their authors upon upload), where the unencrypted versions are stored. --- Again, this is for the sake of warding off plagiarism.

This is not a well thought-out idea. If there are maps that are not working, and assuming the author gives permission/is unable to be contacted, then people can upload the map into the comments section and then ask map reviewers to just add a link to the version that is compatible with the latest wc3 version into the map description.
Example from "Return of the Dragon" campaign:
Nature's Call - Return of the Dragon

Author was unable to contacted, so the map reviewer just added the link to a 1.29+ compatible version that another user uploaded to the comments.

It is best to avoid uploading multiple versions of maps to hive, even if only staff can see the duplicate.

The request section can be used to ask for people to help restore maps if the author is willing/has been not contactable for XXX amount of years, and then just explain it to a map reviewer, who will make a decision whether to add it or not, so the link can be added in the map description to the version that has been uploaded by a user (best to be in the comment section, so all people can publicly see it even without a link to it).

3 months is not even a long time, it would need years of there not being any way to contact an author before anything should be done. And even then, it should only be added as a link in the map description, not as a separate file.

There won't always be maps that have compatible versions. Take for example Chernobyl - Lost Riddles, Loap Smileville, RARP, Metroid Fusion. These were all maps that were actively played in their time - but are lost because the author could not be contacted. There was nobody that could make a compatible version for them, and thus they were forgotten, lost and are hardly ever heard of again. While the encryption is forwarding off duplicates - duplicates won't necessarily have to happen if the trusted provider and announcer who makes the restored version is the Hive Staff itself. Only the staff would be able to nominate someone with the trusted work of restoring a map and thus only one person would be working on a restored version in the offchance the owner doesn't reply.

As for the part about three months, it was merely a suggestion that comes from how long Blizzard takes to remove an unactive account from wc3. Naturally, most of the rules would be decided on the staff if they approve of the idea. I do agree about the links, however - though for the sake of ease of finding, a separate file would be much easier. Simply crunch the name of the map and you'll find it if it is restored.

Though like anything - all ideas are up for discussion and re-interpretation. Initially, it's the hive that chooses how they would want to implement this idea. I'm merely throwing the suggestion out.

 

[Xeryxoz]

How about the one who 'fixes' the map upload the edited triggers which would get evaluated by the community? I think beginners, with ample knowledge, shouldn't be barred from doing these stuff. Think of it as a way of passing the baton (and as an exercise/training) to the newer generation of modders.

I do believe it's a good idea, though the problem comes from lack of trust I'd say? For example, if you give it to someone that hasn't made their presence in the Hive all too knowledgeable, there comes a point where they could abuse the given trust to 'continue' the work without permission for more than restoration - if you get my reasoning.

 

[chobibo]

I understand what you are saying, I'm not against it. I'm just sharing my opinion.

Still, it would be nice if we let newcomers participate, maybe delegate some work to the community? Anyway, good luck to your project.

 

[Xeryxoz]

I understand what you are saying, I'm not against it. I'm just sharing my opinion.

Still, it would be nice if we let newcomers participate, maybe delegate some work to the community? Anyway, good luck to your project.

Thanks! And the project is meant to be handed to the community from a Staff member's perspective. Incidentally, I wouldn't really be a part of the restoration guild since I myself have no proper knowledge of what area might be affected by blizzard's patch, though yeah - It's a form of 'Community contribution for the community' idea. If it passes, I think no future maps would ever be lost again.

 

[tulee]

There won't always be maps that have compatible versions. Take for example Chernobyl - Lost Riddles, Loap Smileville, RARP, Metroid Fusion. These were all maps that were actively played in their time - but are lost because the author could not be contacted. There was nobody that could make a compatible version for them, and thus they were forgotten, lost and are hardly ever heard of again. While the encryption is forwarding off duplicates - duplicates won't necessarily have to happen if the trusted provider and announcer who makes the restored version is the Hive Staff itself. Only the staff would be able to nominate someone with the trusted work of restoring a map and thus only one person would be working on a restored version in the offchance the owner doesn't reply.

What I wrote describes exactly this. The example I gave was of a campaign that was not compatible post 1.24, so a user uploaded the file of a 1.29+ version in the comments section, which the map reviewer then decided to link in the map description of the map. What exactly are you trying to say?

Your suggestion makes it sound like it is not possible to make older maps that don't work on new patches compatible unless it is protected---but that is incorrect. People with indepth knowledge of JASS and various other tools can deprotect protected maps anyway and make them compatible, so there is no point in uploading an unprotected version.

So, you would force people to upload unprotected maps to hive, or is this only a choice? I personally think having unprotected maps on hive is great, but not everyone will think that is the case.

The biggest issue: Your suggestion would not be able to affect maps that have already been posted since most of the authors will not be around to post their unprotected version. This makes your suggestion have very low value, since with people like Mindworx and Kam working for blizzard, they will not likely have situation where blizzard does something that makes a feature previously used cause maps to be incompatible with the latest patch, since there is more understanding from the classic team about the importance of custom maps, so anyone who makes maps using the latest versions will likely never have their maps become incompatible in the future.

The main reason why hiveworkshop has become so successful is that it respects people's creations--- let's keep it that way, even if it means people's maps that might (very small chance) become incompatible in the future will not be able to be edited (but even that is wrong, since protected maps can still be opened).

Once again, the example above from Return of the Dragon campaign is exactly how this situation should be handled, instead of over complicating hive and forcing creators to give up two versions of a map--- if they want to share it, then they can, but it needs to be their choice.

 

[Xeryxoz]

What I wrote describes exactly this. The example I gave was of a campaign that was not compatible post 1.24, so a user uploaded the file of a 1.29+ version in the comments section, which the map reviewer then decided to link in the map description of the map. What exactly are you trying to say?

Your suggestion makes it sound like it is not possible to make older maps that don't work on new patches compatible unless it is protected---but that is incorrect. People with indepth knowledge of JASS and various other tools can deprotect protected maps anyway and make them compatible, so there is no point in uploading an unprotected version.

So, you would force people to upload unprotected maps to hive, or is this only a choice? I personally think having unprotected maps on hive is great, but not everyone will think that is the case.

The biggest issue: Your suggestion would not be able to affect maps that have already been posted since most of the authors will not be around to post their unprotected version. This makes your suggestion have very low value, since with people like Mindworx and Kam working for blizzard, they will not likely have situation where blizzard does something that makes a feature previously used cause maps to be incompatible with the latest patch, since there is more understanding from the classic team about the importance of custom maps, so anyone who makes maps using the latest versions will likely never have their maps become incompatible in the future.

The main reason why hiveworkshop has become so successful is that it respects people's creations--- let's keep it that way, even if it means people's maps that might (very small chance) become incompatible in the future will not be able to be edited (but even that is wrong, since protected maps can still be opened).

Once again, the example above from Return of the Dragon campaign is exactly how this situation should be handled, instead of over complicating hive and forcing creators to give up two versions of a map--- if they want to share it, then they can, but it needs to be their choice.

To respond to your claims, I'll make a counter to it --- Site Rules it is a fact that rule 20 doesn't permit those actions on Hive. While I do believe and agree it would be simpler, it is not a popular solution for good reasons. How many maps have actually been restored in the way Return of the Dragon was?

But to answer the rest, no you would not be forced to upload an unencrypted version. It is supposed to be left to the discretion of the author whether he wishes to entrust that sort of version to the Hive Staff Collective. There are two benefits to it.
A) Ease of map restoration should the author not be able to do it himself
B) If the author loses his map due to any reason, it can easily be given by the Staff.

While you aren't forced, it does act like a nifty failsafe to your works should you lose them for any reason - though that's already far enough from the topic at hand.

Moving on, I am well aware the old maps won't have this option, simply because the unencrypted versions are lost/the authors aren't here/other reasons. While I do trust blizzard's careful eye to not break the popular maps, some are outside of the scope. For example, 1.28 and 1.30 broke some maps which haven't been fixed yet --- Warcraft Strike or Modern Warfare (made by the maker of Undead Assault) as a good example. Just because you can't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't. This is precisely why I've suggested what I did. Better options are always up for discussion though.

In conclusion: To truly respect an author, keep his legacy alive, even if it means having to tamper a little to bring it back through the act of restoration. A good example would be restoring a real-life artist's art.

Edit: Response recieved just as I publicized my edit. I'll admit you have fair arguments - It does make this section fairly pointless if every map after 1.24 will have their fair share of fixes that bring them back. Like I said - I don't know everything so this was actually a piece of information that generally removes all reasoning to create the Restoration Guild. I'd still leave it to the choices of the staff in the very end; though with what you've told me that seems to be something un-needed in the long run.

 

[tulee]

To respond to your claims, I'll make a counter to it --- How many maps have actually been restored in the way Return of the Dragon was?

Very few, but that is because very few are willing to spend time to make maps compatible--- your suggestion will run into the same issue. It is about people wanting to contribute their time, it is not a job, and feeding reputation to people won't increase the number of people willing to do this.

but from what I know Deprotecting Encrypted maps will break them unless you don't actually change anything inside.

Deprotecting can be done so map is not destroyed, but that is not the point--- I only raised that issue to show you that keeping 2 copies is not necessary.

But to answer the rest, no you would not be forced to upload an unprotected version. It is supposed to be left to the discretion of the author whether he wishes to entrust that sort of version to the Hive Staff Collective. There are two benefits to it.

Authors can just upload their map to a private paste file if they are worried about losing the map/ease to pass it on to someone else in the future.

Respect towards someone's creation is to also maintain it alive if that is possible.

Author's creation rights come before the rights of the player dude. Yes, it might seem selfish to some, but in the end the reason why hive is a special place it that it respects the rights of the authors, and that helps draw high quality content creators here. "Respect... is keeping it alive" is not a fair argument.

Personally, I have 5 broken maps from 1.29's and 1.30's patch in my folder, which is a testament - not everything will be appeased. Only the big and popular will.

What you are talking about is bugs. There is no indication that blizzard will not fix the bugs it has created. The compatibility issues we are talking about are ones that can never be fixed because of a conscious choice on blizzard's part--- I.e the 1.24 return bug exploit was removed permanently because it caused a security risk to allow custom maps to maliciously affect players' computers. Those are the compatibility issues we are talking about. There is nothing in 1.29 and 1.30 similar to that, so if you are patient, your maps from those versions will be playable in future versions.

As such, the main point still stands--- if we are starting this now, there is little value, since almost all/any maps made from now on will likely never have compatibility issues in the future.

Though again, I'm not properly experienced and I don't have all the knowledge. If your idea works, even I support it out of simplicity, though there are site rules which depict actions such as deprotection and circumvention.

I never said deprotection should be used. The example I gave was of a map that was not-protected (Return of the Dragon). Protected maps may be lost forever if they were made using features that are not allowed anymore, and that is just something that should to be accepted if you want to respect authors of projects on hiveworkshop.

 

[Ralle]

The reason I want it to be unprotected is because we are basically making a judgment that the map is now public domain. It means we as a community will restore it and keep it healthy for the future. The long sighted best approach is to keep it not protected so you one day can pass on the mantle (even when you are not here) to someone else willing to keep the map going.

 

[deepstrasz]

The reason I want it to be unprotected is because we are basically making a judgment that the map is now public domain. It means we as a community will restore it and keep it healthy for the future. The long sighted best approach is to keep it not protected so you one day can pass on the mantle (even when you are not here) to someone else willing to keep the map going.

Spoiler

I agree with tulee. The problem with making it everyone's is the result we started getting for some time now: countless edits of older maps, each by a different "author" (editor) which obviously have "creative" differences and will not work together. And let's not forget about that recent co-op campaign which had no author acceptance or proper desire to get one.

It's not like the site will cut all that and only appoint some people for a project to be "restored".

 

[Ralle]

The Hive isn't a place for plagiarised maps. So this should be manageable.

 

[deepstrasz]

The Hive isn't a place for plagiarised maps. So this should be manageable.

Where do we draw that line? There are multiple versions of the same "inactive" maps already on Hiveworkshop of which some I've approved. How are we to decide which is to be approved and which not, especially when, say a better version from a different "author", comes after the one we just approved?

 

[Xeryxoz]

Where do we draw that line? There are multiple versions of the same "inactive" maps already on Hiveworkshop of which some I've approved. How are we to decide which is to be approved and which not, especially when, say a better version from a different "author", comes after the one we just approved?

I believe the line should be both simple and robust when it comes to restoration --- No adding new content or subjective artistic variations. Fix the code for the map to continue functioning and the restoration job is done. The only 'edit' I see in a grey line is adding 'Restoration Credits Log' in the quest tab where the restorer puts his name and a comparison of 'original code > restoration code'. Anything else is in the domain of mandatory contact for permissions (Such as asking the author to create actual game-changing edits or permission to continue working on the map - defined under HiveWorkShop's rules).

Though the general concern is having the map unencrypted. It might not be admitted to the Hive, but an edited version would always be in WC3's circulation.

 

[Ralle]

How about asking first or something.

 

[Xeryxoz]

How about asking first or something.

It works that way as well --- Though if an author has given Hive's Staff a copy for restoration purposes, then it's technically already in the domain of 'You may restore my map' permissions which the Hive's Staff may pass on to a trusted member. Note that this is a last-ditch resort idea when contacting via all methods has yielded no response for X amount of time, and may only be done if the author has actually given a restoration copy.

Note: Naturally, if an author wants to pull his restoration copy for whatever reason ("I didn't want to give away a restoration map!" for example), it should be an easy thing to do (Easier than name change at least).

 

[Frotty]

2. The published updated version is not protected.

Okay so 90+% of broken maps will be prohibited from being fixed?

I haved fixed plenty of maps in the past - you can simply make a request in the Requests section.

However I agree that having some "official" update to the map rather than just a comment can be very useful, because many people don't look in the comments after downloading and testing the broken map.
Checking the statistics reveals hundreds of downloads per month, even though the fixed version is linked by the reviewer.

 

[deepstrasz]

However I agree that having some "official" update to the map rather than just a comment can be very useful, because many people don't look in the comments after downloading and testing the broken map.

tulee gave an example of a map reviewer putting that link in the map thread description with a visible notification.

 

[Frotty]

tulee gave an example of a map reviewer putting that link in the map thread description with a visible notification.

And yet 200+ ppl per month press the big download button, as I elaborated.
I kinda doubt that those are all <1.29 downloaders.

 

[deepstrasz]

And yet 200+ ppl per month press the big download button, as I elaborated. It's not sufficient.

Well, a moderator could upload the fixed version instead. I, as a reviewer cannot do that.

But the thing is this way, as mentioned before, has its advantages for people playing on older patches.

 

[tulee]

And yet 200+ ppl per month press the big download button, as I elaborated.
I kinda doubt that those are all <1.29 downloaders.

That just goes to show that people are not even willing to read the map description, considering the example given has nothing else in the description essentially besides the link to the fixed version. Similarly, having multiple versions of a map, even if it is clear which one is "fixed", will still have many people downloading the wrong version because they do not read.

Both Kam and Mindworx understand the importance of custom maps for wc3, and so I think it is unlikely they anything made on modern patches will suddenly break for future versions, which means this kind of a system won't even have much use, as even if a map is protected, it won't be broken by a future patch (only maps that have been made during a time when blizzard was not clued in to the important of player made content would have a chance of being broken).

There is already a place for maps to be simply dumped--- It is called epicwar.com

Hive should not allow multiple versions of maps to be uploaded under the pretence of "fixing" "broken" maps. Having fixed versions uploaded to comments is really as far as this sort of thing should go, regardless of whether people bother to read map descriptions or not.

 

[deepstrasz]

@tulee yes, that would be an idea for co-op versions of campaigns to be in the same thread as their original version in their map description as a link or the sort.

 

[tulee]

@tulee yes, that would be an idea for co-op versions of campaigns to be in the same thread as their original version in their map description as a link or the sort.

^^

I mean, I guess I was originally biased when talking about that specific map, since I thought it was going to lead to a revolution of coop versions of all existing campaigns, but yea, having it linked in to the original map would probably circumvent some of the issues that come with such maps.

 

[deepstrasz]

I mean, I guess I was originally biased when talking about that specific map, since I thought it was going to lead to a revolution of coop versions of all existing campaigns, but yea, having it linked in to the original map would probably circumvent some of the issues that come with such maps.

The point being that it is not an "enhancement/improvement" but an edit for co-op and that's it.
Otherwise we should reject it.
We should aim for users to be creative not editors.

 

[tulee]

We should aim for users to be creative not editors.

You summed up the the main issue with this thread's original suggestion perfectly.

 

[Ralle]

Okay so 90+% of broken maps will be prohibited from being fixed?

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that one time deprotected, always deprotected. So the restored version would not be protected, not the source.