The rule about map protection

[Ralle]

I want to discuss something with all of you. This rule:

20. Removal of / Circumventing Map Protection
- The topic of removing or circumventing map protection is not permitted.

It may be time for us to remove it. With some caveats.

With the launch of Reforged, many maps have been broken and their authors aren't here to fix them. Therefore, it would greatly help the community to be able to document how to get inside of them and to repair them.

This does not mean that Hive will become the wild west. I am thinking the following things might still make sense:

1. The general discussion of how to deprotect would be completely whitelisted along with tutorials, support and tools.
2. Publicly sharing (link in post, uploading to maps section, dm, etc) a specific deprotected map will only be allowed if you have tried reaching the author with help from the administration and either failed or been granted permission (like with map uploads).

Let me know what you guys think.

PS: Part of me also wants us to prohibit the reprotection of maps but that's probably a step too far and too onerous.

 

[Achille]

I think that the inclusion of number 2 would make it rather straightforward, though I suppose that would just add another bit of responsibility. If "reaching the author with help from the administration" is something that the admins would be okay with then I think it would only really be a good thing.

I learned most of what I know of mapping from opening up other maps and then seeing what made them work, looking at the triggers that were used etc. This makes me obviously biased in favor of your suggestion.

I guess reevaluating the reasons for protection in this case may be helpful. There were many reasons one would want to protect a map, but the chief amongst them used to be the prevention of cheating. Certain nefarious or creative individuals may still bypass this protection using common tools available to the warcraft 3 modding community to skip use of the editor completely and just inject their code for commands.

The second reason for map protection would be the optimization of file size. Back when file size was capped and maps had to exist efficiently below an 8 MB size, map protection was a fantastic way to squeeze that file for all that it was worth. But now file size caps are gone.

The third reason is the most difficult to address. Some people genuinely wanted their work to be private and unviewable. They saw there work as arcane and innovative. Perhaps they competed with other map makers in a race to create their own pinnacle of map design? But thinking of it further, if someone wanted their work to be private, and we cannot reach them, is it right to deprotect their map? I'm unsure, though I do personally find the concept of 'my private map' to be highfalutin.

With these three reasons in mind I think I have made a case that map protection has become rather outdated. My final thought in the matter comes from a matter of 'experience'.

Map de-protection does not automatically fix the map up to its initially editable state. More often than naught, your left with an unformatted script with all of its variable names reduced to numbers, and such a map will often times not even run after being saved. For the most part, the only reliable outcome of map deprotection is producing the originally created terrain, which should be easily credible after the deprotector (deprotectee? Deprotectonamous?) fills the terrain with their own map ideas.

Edit: Some sentence structure and a typo.

 

[Daffa]

This is a pretty complicated issue to easily decide on personally.


When it comes to protection, there's also the intention of exclusivity. I mean, back in the day, protection is the 'off the property you midget' signal for cheaters and people who wants to make cheap edits. I'd say this can only be done EXCLUSIVELY under the intention of reparation and the member MUST have proper competence in regards to map fixing as well.

I'd say, something like what we did with one of the old campaigns which were broken would be okay. So, I'd favor this as an exclusive right instead of being generally permissible for now. It gives a sense of trust to the community and one of the reasons why Hive is trusted out there is because we prohibit messing with other works without explicit permission or under justifiable circumstances.

 

[Ralle]

I guess reevaluating the reasons for protection in this case may be helpful. There were many reasons one would want to protect a map, but the chief amongst them used to be the prevention of cheating. Certain nefarious or creative individuals may still bypass this protection using common tools available to the warcraft 3 modding community to skip use of the editor completely and just inject their code for commands.

When it comes to protection, there's also the intention of exclusivity. I mean, back in the day, protection is the 'off the property you midget' signal for cheaters and people who wants to make cheap edits. I'd say this can only be done EXCLUSIVELY under the intention of reparation and the member MUST have proper competence in regards to map fixing as well.

I guess the whole reaching the author thing must be justified. In no case are you allowed to submit an existing map with cheats just because. You should not abuse the privilege to edit someone else's map. It's hard to define in a rule though. It's like porn as in "I know it when I see it".

The third reason is the most difficult to address. Some people genuinely wanted their work to be private and unviewable. They saw there work as arcane and innovative. Perhaps they competed with other map makers in a race to create their own pinnacle of map design? But thinking of it further, if someone wanted their work to be private, and we cannot reach them, is it right to deprotect their map? I'm unsure, though I do personally find the concept of 'my private map' to be highfalutin.

Well if they aren't around anymore to update their map, they don't care enough to be around and respond when we reach out to them.

I'd say, something like what we did with one of the old campaigns which were broken would be okay. So, I'd favor this as an exclusive right instead of being generally permissible for now. It gives a sense of trust to the community and one of the reasons why Hive is trusted out there is because we prohibit messing with other works without explicit permission or under justifiable circumstances.

The rules I listed above sort of cover it, but we could extend the map rules to say that submitting an edited map with cheats added is not allowed unless proof of verifiable permission to do just that is shown.

One thing is to be allowed to continue someone else's map with or without their direct permission (if they're not reachable), but shitting on it is never OK. Only if we have clear permission from the original author that shitting is intended. And even then, the map might just be substandard or restricted if it's too shitty.

 

[GhostWolf]

How about blizzard fixing what they did so Reforged doen't break maps? No?

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't actually see how this subject has anything to do specifically with Reforged.

For example, what about the return bug that killed countless maps years ago already, which will never be updated because they are corrupted?

I find it ironic to complain about intentionally broken maps being broken. Wow, who would have thought. Evidently not the many people who corrupted their maps, lost their original copy, and then went running in search of someone that can uncorrupt their map.

And yes, I support changing the rule

 

[Wrda]

This is something I'm totally in favour of. I'll tell you guys a little story.
2 months ago I came across to one of the creators of Hero Line Wars Roc 5.5 in the map lobby, named froggygoggy. I was surprised to see him there because that was the first time I saw him, I made sure it was the same guy that was one of the creators of the map. After a few interactions, he said he'd love to continue working on the map, but he and the other creator of the map lost their original copy (the unprotected version) and they're sad they can't improve and fix bugs on it. I, who has been doing some considerable amount of research reguarding this topic for a quite a while, told him that it's possible to continue to edit the map even through the protection layer, virtually anything. Th
e only part that's the most difficult to work on is the map script because of the obfuscated variable and function names, but we're working on it.
All of this to say what exactly? Well, I've been doing small quick fixes on some broken maps whose author appears not be around anymore, hell, maybe he gave his unprotected version to someone else but how are we supposed to either know that, or know the person who owns it at the time?
I think we can all agree that people who either add cheats or happen to remove the author from map description and secretly edit without putting their name in are not map makers.

I guess the whole reaching the author thing must be justified. In no case are you allowed to submit an existing map with cheats just because. You should not abuse the privilege to edit someone else's map. It's hard to define in a rule though. It's like porn as in "I know it when I see it".

The rules I listed above sort of cover it, but we could extend the map rules to say that submitting an edited map with cheats added is not allowed unless proof of verifiable permission to do just that is shown.

The thing is how are you going to determine if a map has cheats or not? In the case of the map I talked about earlier, there were multiple versions with hidden cheats, even froggygoggy acknewledged it and even thought there was a clean version, but no. We had to remove them manually. But again, the map itself could still have "cheats" because the map has a debug mode, which the purpose is obvious, for testing. Hence it allows commands such as -gold 9999999, -refresh (for cooldowns) and etc. Is that cheating? No, it's part of the map, and it's known because it says in quests and it is written in text messages. So this is something that you need to define.

One thing is to be allowed to continue someone else's map with or without their direct permission (if they're not reachable), but shitting on it is never OK. Only if we have clear permission from the original author that shitting is intended. And even then, the map might just be substandard or restricted if it's too shitty.

Agreed, but how are you going to know by yourself if the "shitting" is intended or not if the original author isn't on hive or wherever, and only reachable by wc3, in which he gave total permition to someone else to do whatever he wants on the map? That's like trying to find needle in a haystack.

I'll try not to repeat much the arguments and counter-arguments about protection, and rather sum it up:
For: Prevent-cheating; thef ---- Against: doesn't stop injecting cheats if one wants to; not actual thef, but rather removing you from credits and possible edits, which is still possible through protection.
For: Optimization ---- Against: Map size limit increased.
For: Private, unviewable ---- Against: Narcissism, selfishness, hindering knowledge, prone to leave wc3 and leave it with bugs, not up to improvement. If you want it to be truely private then don't host in public games.

Well uh, I don't know what to say anymore other than approving the changing of the rule.

 

[deepstrasz]

PS: Part of me also wants us to prohibit the reprotection of maps but that's probably a step too far and too onerous.

I guess, we could have that with the author(s)' permission or if the author is gone, at least a 5 year of radio silence should be given until deprotection should be allowed .

 

[Dr Super Good]

My opinion is that maps were never really protected to begin with. A lot of low level technical knowledge, such as that used to make third party editors and tools, is also able to be used to defeat or circumvent "map protection". This resulted in a double standard on sites like Hive since in some topics people were talking about how the editor, and protection, works and alternative ways to modify maps that might bypass protection while in others they could technically not mention this knowledge because the topic creator intended to use it to directly circumvent map protection. For consistency my interpretation of the rule was to repeat the knowledge, but leave it up to the topic creator to use and implement if they intend to defeat copy protection.

I think general discussion of protection and deprotection should be permitted. With the catch that no support is to be given to people who want to defeat protection just for the purpose of stealing or ruining a map. If a map has been abandoned and a person wants to try continue development of the map I do not see a problem with enabling them to do so as long as they do not intend to discredit the original author who's work they are using or to destroy the reputation of map by trivializing save/load code progress. At any time the original author could demand that progress, or any of the made branches, be blocked so as to give them some rights over their creations.

I also think that there should be a general encouragement for map authors to be more open source about their map projects to avoid this kind of problem to begin with. Especially those that do not have save/load functionality to defeat. The strongest form of protection is a paper trail and authentication, since people cannot take away something that everyone knows is not theirs and neither can they claim to be someone people know they are not. There would need to be some standard for save/load systems in these maps so as to discourage individuals from defeating them.

 

[BLOKKADE]

I think this would be a very useful change to the rules.

When I started working on my map - which started out as me updating an abandoned protected map and eventually turned into a full remake - I spent a lot of time browsing through forums where cheats are added to maps because those were the only ones that freely shared that information. It involved lots of downloading of shady .exe files and other weird programs like that. Making it possible on the Hive would be great because it's - to me - a trusted site. Map de-protection also teaches you a lot about how Wc3 and its file formats work which is always a good thing to share.

 

[Ralle]

I think general discussion of protection and deprotection should be permitted. With the catch that no support is to be given to people who want to defeat protection just for the purpose of stealing or ruining a map.

This part is just hard to enforce. We shouldn't start interrogating people. But it's a good sentiment.

When I started working on my map - which started out as me updating an abandoned protected map and eventually turned into a full remake - I spent a lot of time browsing through forums were cheats are added to maps because those were the only ones that freely shared that information. It involved lots of downloading of shady .exe files and other weird programs like that. Making it possible on the Hive would be great because it's - to me - a trusted site. Map de-protection also teaches you a lot about how Wc3 and its file formats work which is always a good thing to share.

It sounds like by doing it on a non-sketchy site and making a few guidelines / norms, we can actually influenze those who do this.

 

[MasterBlaster]

We shouldn't start interrogating people. But it's a good sentiment.

Maybe put all the deprotection stuff in a subforum that's only visible to users who meet certain cryteria?

I think a fair requirement would be to have at least 1 approved map uploaded to the site, but if that's too harsh you could just ask for a certain level/number of posts. It doesn't have to be particularly restrictive, even fairly mild requirements would at least make it a bit harder to use deprotection for stealing/ruining a map.

 

[Ralle]

So if someone decides to make a tool about it, he cannot talk about it until he has an approved map?

I know where you're coming from by showing prior art of being constructive in the community, but that suggestion seems way too specific to me.

 

[Rui]

Back in the day, I pushed for a strict policy. But I see no problem with allowing maps to be edited after a few years if the author is gone. In U.S. Law, an author's copyrighted work is public domain (I think) 70 years after his/her death. Our rule could be similar, lowered to 5 years.

On the question of whether reprotection. I think you should be allowed protect your spinoff. The original copy whose author disappeared remains unprotected for anyone to branch off of it.

 

[IcemanBo]

I believe it's a good, doable way, drawing the line at publishing on Hive, showing theft isn't supported.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some thoughts, though.

First of, so I define "Hive support for unprotection" like allowing to re-post a originally, by a potentially different author, protected map publicly in what ever way. Like a submission in the maps section maybe. Just talking somewhere, is not what I mean as excplicit having Hive support. Talking would be common.

So, 'Fixing map' should always be a premisse, next to reaching out to the author, to legitimate Hive supported unprotection. Gameplay changes, or access to resources should not be considered worthy, when it's about to take and to re-publish someone's work.

One single user shouldn't get the privilege of deciding what to do with the unprotected map. I'd like the process being Hive driven:

1. GUY_1 reaches out to staff, explaing why Hive wants to support unprotection, and re-publishing.
2. If supporting unprotection makes sense, the Hive is taking over from here. The domain where the map was uploaded gets now to decide about fixing the broken map is ok.
3. Hive grants support for GUY_1 unprotecting and fixing the map.

When we are here, there's at some point a new published map somewhen. Remember that "fixing" was a premisse in before, not others like enhancing, or stealing. Here are some thoughts about criteria what I mean with "Hive domain" in terms of effect:

• Threads are linking each other, so there is no confusion in future if a fixed version exists, and by who, etc.
• Staff individually decides, if it's ok to have an unprotected version being published by GUY_1. Afterall, we might still want to align with the original author's will, even the map was once allowed bing unprotected for the fix. By default, I would not set it up that all content will become unprotected.
• Hive will decide for future requests from potentially other GUYs, if support for unprotection is given
  GUY_1 can get Hive support for unprotection, while GUY_2 doesn't. It just might make no sense.
  But if it doesn't work out with GUY_1, then Hive can hand it over to GUY_2, for example.
• Hive Workshop being co-author, showing GUY_1 collaborates with Hive, publishing the fixed map, and it helping Hive Staff making decissions in future, making it again more clear, it's not GUY_1's original map, but as is, somehow also belongs to Hive.

Most legimate cases would be probably fixes. If someone works much, making significant changes, improvements, enhancements, next to the original fix, then Hive should evaluate it, GUY_1 becoming solely map author, removing Hive Workshop as co-author. Beside that I would go with Hive domain next to it.

 

[Ralle]

I don't really like the idea of Hive being this much of a motor behind this, with approval, etc.

I like that we aim to protect the map by not allowing submitting cheats, etc. And that we make proper sure that the original author is not around anymore as we do with the maps section. Those two things are key.

 

[IcemanBo]

I don't really like the idea of Hive being this much of a motor behind this, with approval, etc.

What points are you refering to? I have honestly no idea.

 

[Ralle]

If supporting unprotection makes sense, the Hive is taking over from here.

I am not so keen on "Hive taking over from here".

 

[IcemanBo]

That sentence alone? I believe you haven't got my point, or at least the answers don't really make sense to me. From what I see is it's now the plan anyways, staff is involved with granting permissiont to re-publish.

 

[Ralle]

There are two facets.

1. General discussion of problem solving, information sharing and tool distribution.

2. Publishing of maps (attachments, link to a pastebin, maps section). This requires that the author has been reached (with help from Hive if necessary) or was unable to be reached.

We already have a rule addressing point 2.

What I would be adding would be along the lines of:

2.a Regardless of which permission has been granted (especially when none at all due to being away), we expect the map to be taken care of in a respectful manner. By that we mean the submitter does not simply add cheats but actually continue serious development of the map. Re-protected or not.

 

[IcemanBo]

With the launch of Reforged, many maps have been broken and their authors aren't here to fix them. Therefore, it would greatly help the community to be able to document how to get inside of them and to repair them.

^that's what you said yourself. Similar like I suggested, with staff granting permission based of case. A map that is broken and even needs fix.

Further, if we allow re-posting in Maps Section, then we can't allow 20 people do this for the same map, obviously. I would think it's somehow agaist our common maps regulation, having many authors of a map, at many places. So staff has to make the decission, who/when can, and who maybe can't at some point anymore.

I would think it's not a good way, if multiple people could publish unprotected versions around on Hive, just a map that is not broken in first place, and author maybe did not grant permission to his resouces. Both cases should be considered to handle. My stance is nothing more, that Hive handles these cases, as I think it's better the community staff regulates it, instead of only one person.

 

[Ralle]

So staff has to make the decission, who/when can, and who maybe can't at some point anymore.

I don't think that's our decision. But we have a rule that says that maps must be unique. So it's first come first served I guess. But that's only for submitting. You can deprotect and work hard and make it your own and submit it anyway.

 

[Wrda]

I don't see why the staff should have the power to decide whether or not it's ok to fix a map because:
1. they might not know it.
2. they might not care about it.
3. they could reject permission because they just feel like it, probably based on their own values.
4. bias?
5. even if author has granted permission privately, why does the staff also grant permission over that, rather than the other person informing the permission of the former.

Further, if we allow re-posting in Maps Section, then we can't allow 20 people do this for the same map, obviously. I would think it's somehow agaist our common maps regulation, having many authors of a map, at many places. So staff has to make the decission, who/when can, and who maybe can't at some point anymore.

The chances of this happening when the map is fixed is low. But even if that happens, shouldn't it be the ones who post first that deserve the spot?

I would think it's not a good way, if multiple people could publish unprotected versions around on Hive, just a map that is not broken in first place, and author maybe did not grant permission to his resouces. Both cases should be considered to handle. My stance is nothing more, that Hive handles these cases, as I think it's better the community staff regulates it, instead of only one person.

If the author is no longer around, then anyone should be free to improve and update it. That's what a good fellow does. If it happens that someone injected cheats, he will be caught and punished. If one ruins the map, yet we have to define what constitutes "ruining", but generally if a lot of people who have known the map for a considerable amount of time and are very unhappy with the modifications, then probably that's "ruining". Claiming "I don't like this version" isn't enough.
Going back to fixing broken protected/unprotected maps, it is indeed a stronger reason to approve since it benefits everyone. However, same logic above applies here too.
Regarding re-protection...eh, doesn't that make the story repeat itself years later?
There are ways to detect/prevent that rather than closing all doors for everyone, assuming they know how to. But this looks debatable.

 

[IcemanBo]

maps must be unique. So it's first come first served I guess.

Fixing a broken map for new patch doesn't make a unique map in gameplay. But I agree, and that's what I mean, that the staff regulates at what point it's ok to re-publish a fixed version, or when it's not ok (anymore).

I don't see why the staff should have the power to decide whether or not it's ok to fix a map because:

It's not about fixing, it's about having support on Hive, so lagitimately submitting as a resource (for which the fix should be a premise). It's not senseful potentially having replicates of fixed versions. Staff is the one to make regulation, as one user alone should not make the decission of legitimating to re-post one author's map.

I want one fixed version and the fixed version being linked in old thread, and also the other way around, having a clear note that the new submission is a fix of "....". Making "Hive Worlshop" as co-author was just like an extra suggestion, more showing the Hive legitimation for re-posting a broken map by someone else on the forums.

As I also mentioned that, yes, if gameplay etc gets just very extended, then it might anyway become a new own product, not counting as just a fix anymore.

Regarding re-protection...eh, doesn't that make the story repeat itself years later?

Even I'm not a fan of protection, we should respect their choice, and not publish resources against author's will, if not wanted. Old- or new author. But I agree that might be an other debateable point for the future.

 

[Ralle]

I don't see why the staff should have the power to decide whether or not it's ok to fix a map because:
1. they might not know it.
2. they might not care about it.
3. they could reject permission because they just feel like it, probably based on their own values.
4. bias?
5. even if author has granted permission privately, why does the staff also grant permission over that, rather than the other person informing the permission of the former.

The chances of this happening when the map is fixed is low. But even if that happens, shouldn't it be the ones who post first that deserve the spot?

If the author is no longer around, then anyone should be free to improve and update it. That's what a good fellow does. If it happens that someone injected cheats, he will be caught and punished. If one ruins the map, yet we have to define what constitutes "ruining", but generally if a lot of people who have known the map for a considerable amount of time and are very unhappy with the modifications, then probably that's "ruining". Claiming "I don't like this version" isn't enough.
Going back to fixing broken protected/unprotected maps, it is indeed a stronger reason to approve since it benefits everyone. However, same logic above applies here too.
Regarding re-protection...eh, doesn't that make the story repeat itself years later?
There are ways to detect/prevent that rather than closing all doors for everyone, assuming they know how to. But this looks debatable.

You are right, to a certain extent.

We would like to prevent the posting of deprotected maps with no form of oversight as some people would get very pissed if you posted their map deprotected under their nose. We want to be part of verifying that you have the original author's permission or verifying that they are indeed inactive. That's all.

 

[The_Silent]

I think:

• It should be clear from the title of the updated map that it is a continuation. (For example 'remix', 'continuation', '2', 'updated', ect.). So we avoid confusion and later claims or authorship.
• There should be both authors on the updated map. Both original, and updater.
• Some clear rules regarding when a map is up for getting updated. Author hasn't been on for 3 years and map is broken, or author hasn't been updated for 3 years and map hasn't been updated for at least as long. Have some actual rulings that the map authors can also agree to when they upload, and not just the eventual later updaters. As some part of the upload ""linsence"" or something.

 

[IcemanBo]

^I also would tend to see some clarification in what ever form, to avoid confusion about legitimation, or authorship.
Not to hijack, but here's a related thread for people that might give examples for this topic. Rule about map protection - What maps would You like to fix/deprotect?

 

[Ralle]

I think a branching of the name is definitely a good thing we might recommend.

What if the author of a map wants help deprotecting his map? Does he have to branch off too? I guess it depends on whether you have received a go-ahead from the author or not. If not, a branch is required.

 

[Wrda]

We would like to prevent the posting of deprotected maps with no form of oversight as some people would get very pissed if you posted their map deprotected under their nose. We want to be part of verifying that you have the original author's permission or verifying that they are indeed inactive. That's all.

Yes, that seems logical and fair enough

I think a branching of the name is definitely a good thing we might recommend.

What if the author of a map wants help deprotecting his map? Does he have to branch off too? I guess it depends on whether you have received a go-ahead from the author or not. If not, a branch is required.

If the author of a map wants help deprotecting his map, I don't think it would make sense for him to branch off. About the rest seems good.

 

[Retera]

Time is valuable. The most valuable thing that we have in life is time. I just wasted time by reading this discussion (for my entertainment purposes).

Map protection does not exist. If you download Vexorian's Optimizer, he notes in it that map protection could exist, but it did not at the time of writing and his tool does not achieve it. All that we have are a lot of intentionally corrupted maps. It turns out, when you get better technology you can have people build off of the technology and make inventive new solutions to problems. Suppose we look forward 3-5 years. If the Warsmash project goes the way that I want it to, I would anticipate it might become a very trivial task to download the sourcecode for the Warsmash engine, and to add to the "In-Game ESC Menu" a second button. This button would be like "Save Game" but instead it would be "Save Game as Map". Then it would make a World Editor compatible map file based on the positions of the current units in the world and dump the currently active triggers to the Trigger Editor. We all know that the technical issues would make this slightly harder than I am describing, but the surprising reality is that it would not be too much harder than what I am describing. I am at least able to imagine the "modding death star" repo that would contain support for loading and saving all Warcraft 3 formats as well as a playable reference implementation of the game, and in this repo I think that it would not be so difficult to add this menu option.

Another way to think about why map corruption is actually stupid would be if I added a new button to Retera Model Studio called Model Corrupter. Model corrupter would corrupt a model into a format that none of our modding tools knew how to preview or open. That way, "View in 3D" on the Hive would not work, and opening the model in MDLVis or Magos or Retera Model Studio or the MdlxConv or whatever would not work, but then the model would still work in the game. And you have to ask yourself, if map corruption should exist, then why are we not also pursuing this model corruption technique? If I discovered a new way to achieve this model corruption and publish an "MDX Optimizer" that can achieve this -- without publishing the source code for the "MDX Optimizer" so that only I know how it works -- would I be doing all of you a favor?

And what it seems to me is that stupid data corruption is not a favor. I believe that publishing the MDX Corrupter would not do anyone a favor. Whether I do or do not know how to achieve MDX Corruption, I do not feel interested in publishing an MDX Corrupter tool for everyone. And the reason is simple: because it would be stupid and pointless.

What happens if I go to the models section right now and search through 1000 MDX files, find my favorite 15 models, download them all, "improve" them all by replacing their head with Archimonde's head, and then upload it to the Hive as a resource? Do you believe that the models section has a deficiency because our technology allows me to do the Archimonde Head Defacing? Do you believe that we should invent a separate "corrupted model" format that nobody understands so that the proud, "skilled" MDX artists can make all their uploaded models be in the Corrupted Format so that our tools do not work on them, but only the game can view them?

I see the questions that I am asking as a form of satire because of how ridiculous the corrupted model format would seem to me to be. And yet, in the eyes of the format inventors, .MDX is that protected format and .MAX is the unprotected version. And once you realize that truth you might have to ask yourself why this website has supported modifying "protected" (i.e. MDX binary) model files while simultaneously living the hypocrisy of not supporting modifying the "protected" map files. One might say the difference was who created the files -- and that we are all here to disrespect Blizzard so their invention of a separate, compiled "release" MDX binary model format in 2002 with no means to modify it is irrelevant. But I prefer to believe that I am not disrespecting Blizzard when I make the Owl Moon Priestess by modifying the compiled binary MDX models in the game whose authors did not have a technology to modify this format themselves.

Now, there are probably some RPG authors out there who loathe cheated save codes or something and are fuming about my technology-focused stance and my allegory between map files and model files. Maybe that is because they believe that map files are more complicated than model files and therefore deserve more respect. Yet, many Reforged model files are larger and contain more data than many old map files that did not use custom assets. I have many, many great memories playing "Real Life [for Morons]" with my family back in 2005 or so. Some versions of the map file that I have on my computer are roughly 3 MB in size. The Reforged Peasant MDX file, by contrast, is 3.9 MB in size. Yet again, the technology defies the human intuition in this case regarding which is "bigger". And if you decide to measure by time taken to create the file rather than its size, I can make a similar counter argument because I know users like Direfury have told me stories of working on a single MDX model from scratch for many days, whereas I have made and enjoyed custom maps that were the work of only a few hours.

And this is sometimes incredibly frustrating to me because I have moments like the other night when I was rambling on to Kam about something I was passionate about in Warsmash, and then he fires back seeing me as a "technological person" and then asks me if I can make a "new map optimizer to replace Vexorian's." When I incredulously ask him what part of his map is going slow, he suggested that he simply wanted to revoke the possibility of other authors modifying the map. And so while for Warsmash you have me working to try to gather and publish all the knowledge I can scrape together from all of these sources on the Hive about how the game is built so that we can do modding even on the game itself, and meanwhile you have a literal former Reforged employee trying to ask me to focus instead on reducing the amount of modding we can do by achieving the imaginary and nontechnical task of making a map file unreadable while still being readable by the computer of anyone who tries to play it. It turns out, an unreadable-yet-readable map is actually a stupid imaginary paradox from the technology side of things. It depends on the idea that the users do not have any say over how their technology functions.

And it really is just that simple. There never was any map protection to begin with, so this entire topic is actually a trollish in-joke among friends. And like I said, I appreciate the entertainment, but I think that it is important to also understand how technology works. The reason I cannot do the Archimonde Head Defacing and re-upload the defaced models is that it is morally and ethically wrong to deface models and the people on the Hive would stop me (... I hope?). And it is the same premise with map files. Let us not preach ignorance any longer! And we can start to have consistent policies on how we handle these two types of user-generated content (maps and models).

If the map developer community wants a technology to be developed that can prevent the modification of map files, then that would be a wholly new frontier and a new topic that we could create. On that topic, we could take as an example how other large well-informed entities have solved similar problems in history. Consider the example of Android apps: each app is a bundle of assets and code (not unlike a Warcraft 3 map!) and the app is signed with a cryptographic signature that can only be produced by the map's author (because of the scientifically valid notion of "mathematically hard problems"). When a new developer wants to make a modified fork of the compiled Facebook Messenger app, he can unarchive the app and all of its contents (since his phone computer must know how to do this in order to execute the app's contents) so it is entirely possible to create a new Facebook Messenger Cheater app version where every message has a cow emoji appended to the end of the message when sent. However, at the time that the Facebook Messenger Cheater developer tries to rebundle his app as an archive and publish it, he has no technology to generate the cryptographic hash signature matching the original Facebook Messenger signature. So, if he gives his bundled application to a friend and tells them, "This is Facebook Messenger. It is a new version. Install it today!" his friend's app installation system will automatically determine that the cryptographic hash signatures do not match and install Facebook Messenger Cheater as a second, new independent app because it is cryptographically/mathematically self-evident that it is not from the original author.

Furthermore, this technology of cryptographic signatures exists and is supported by the Warcraft III game and has been since 2002. Drops the mic.
I challenge you to make a new Warcraft III map with the "BLIZ" blue logo sign on the map. You will find that unlike "map deprotector" nonsense programs made by ignorant people lying to other ignorant people, it is cryptographically/mathematically impossible for you to stamp a map with the same known BLIZ signature and so you cannot make a "BLIZ" blue logo sign on your map, since it is technologically and mathematically impossible for you to do. That is, has been, and will be the only form of map protection until a substantially new technology is invented.

PS: I have not actually studied the BLIZ logo in any great detail, but that example highlights to me how the solution to this "problem" -- if it is indeed seen as a problem -- is 100% to use advanced mathematically proven cryptography to prove authorship and identity and is 0% to preach ignorance to people. My knowledge of cryptography is limited when we go beyond the basics, and yet I understand the fact that it clearly exists. So even from my basic understanding I cannot imagine solving this problem in any other way for the long term in good faith.

PS 2: However, given all of the above stated thoughts, I would not be opposed to adding a means for Retera Model Studio to sign any MDX model file based on a private key file kept only by the model author, so that models manipulated by other authors could be easily detected as such. It would be an interesting toy example. We could open a legitimate technological discussion about that.

PS 3: If anyone ever asks for a map protector, link them to this tool (but it requires publishing to your users a modified Game.DLL that includes your RSA public key so that the game can identify the maps cryptographically signed by you): shawwwn/MapSigningTool

PS 4: My quotation marks on things Kam said are all paraphrased based on the idea of what I remember him saying and are not remotely exact quotes.

 

[InsaneMonster]

I personally think no map should ever be protected. None of my maps will ever be protected, for what matters.

 

[pick-a-chew]

To be honest, even as a map developer, I am all for it.

Lots of dead maps and projects that I would love to see renewed and updated.

After 3 years of modding Orc Gladiators I have learnt the best map protection is a) your own code, and b) continued development. Especially for larger projects, there's so much object data and code that outside eyes wont really understand it unless they invest the time and effort to do so (and who would do that for a Wc3 custom map?). And if you are actively improving your projects, you can easily outpace any hacked/modified versions.

 

[Wrda]

(and who would do that for a Wc3 custom map?)

People who love the map and are passionately play it

 

[Wlizer]

No, just delete maps that doesnt work from the database. We need to re-create maps. But if original autohors are still there they can make sufficient replace of their best maps for reforged.

Its actually best decision and lessens greatly maps that are not designed and good for reforged. And also new maps developed during and after reforged release have more room to shine like never before.

Most of the old maps are anyways kondtof boring akd submitter did not know they would beallowed to opened so it kind of would break the deal.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

No, just delete maps that doesnt work from the database. We need to re-create maps. But if original autohors are still there they can make sufficient replace of their best maps for reforged.

Its actually best decision and lessens greatly maps that are not designed and good for reforged. And also new maps developed during and after reforged release have more room to shine like never before.

Most of the old maps are anyways kondtof boring akd submitter did not know they would beallowed to opened so it kind of would break the deal.

No to your no. Your forgetting a key part of even reforged which is its player base, our history matters.

 

[JaysProjex]

Against the idea because I feel like we're opening pandora's box.

This part shouldn't be a complicated issue, it doesn't matter how it's possible to extract, gain access to a protected map or for those who think map protection is non-existent, if the author wanted to protect their map in the best way possible (like we try to protect what we have in reality) then you should respect their reason for doing so. Anyone is capable of making their own map it's not that difficult.

Questions & concerns:
1. How are you fully able to identify & prove who the author really is & what is the system in place for it?
2. Your way of contacting the author? What do you consider? Some might not even use hive/websites or sites at all.
3. True intentions, anyone could come up to the line & say I want to fix this protected map, how are you able to know what they really want to do?
4. Maps that have multiple versions because they've been updated (old versions no longer supported) some authors update their maps then no longer supported the outdated versions, how are you going about this?
5. Maps that have been already passed onto a different author but are still being requested to be fixed/deprotected anyways? (regardless of where the state of the map was left upon change of author)
6. Crediting, if someone deprotects/fixes a map should they be allowed a credit?
7. If a map is deprotected/fixed are there plans to reprotect it?
8. Map authors that retire & feel like the job is done & say it's completed or final, are we letting it rest?

Something like this would take a lot to moderate & manage. You would also need staff that are very familiar with the maps & it's original authors.

 

[Tal'Rarity]

I think a method could be considered like it was for substandard resources, any fixed/edited/etc wouldn't usurp the approved or substandard map versions and be in its own section. People will cheat no matter anyways, to allow it would mean it can be monitored and maybe one can try to improve the situation. I am sure any mapper who submits their project wouldn't want to see it disappear without their say so.

 

[Wrda]

Against the idea

This part shouldn't be a really complicated issue, it doesn't matter how it's possible to extract or gain access to a protected map, if the author wanted to protect their map (like we try to protect what we have in reality) then you should respect their reason for doing so. Anyone is capable of making their own map it's not that difficult.

It isn't complicated, instead, you make it seem like so. If the author of the map is no longer among us, has the map protected, then he no longer cares about the map. Who are you to stop anyone for improving the map further or fixing bugs? Protection doesn't exist, nor is supported by Blizzard. If as you say "one has the right to protect their map" then I can simply say "one has the right to open the map", because Blizzard supports it, and that's how it should work. While you may have made the map, you actually don't own it, Blizzard does, it's made publicly for anyone to see, except of course if you just hide it for youself. If I see a protected map, which I happen to like a lot, with a game breaking bug I will fix it, regardless of the author's decision not to let anyone see it: If he is gone, he doesn't care about the map; If he's still active but doesn't bother about the map any more and is apparently unreachable, he doesn't care about it. What's more important? To respect the author's "protect my cutie unique map" or doing the community a favour and fix the map?

if the author wanted to protect their map (like we try to protect what we have in reality) then you should respect their reason for doing so. Anyone is capable of making their own map it's not that difficult.

What's up with you and the comparison to the real world? How is your house, your belongings, all your valueable stuff, even comparable to a map you created by an engine of a game created by someone else? Sure, your house might have been made by construction workers, but it's a freaking house, it's private, it's yours, you paid for it, you didn't pay for your stupid map, you paid for the game, just like everyone else paid for the game, so everyone else has the right to play it or open it. Whether to modify it or create another version on the same idea is another story.
The last sentence of yours is just pointless and dumb itself. Sure I can make my "own" map, who else would do it, aren't we mappers after all? Now if you meant someone to make the same map as, let's say, The Black Road, to make it exactly like it, who the hell would do that, are you nuts? All in all, a very bad argument.
This whole line of logic is the reason that creativity and knowledge is limited, because you shut the doors for everyone else for your selfish desires, while it doesn't stop the bad cheating guys at all.

Questions & concerns:
1. How are you fully able to identify who the author really is & what is the system in place for it?
2. Your way of contacting the author? What do you consider? Some might not even use hive/websites or sites at all.
3. True intentions, anyone could come up to the line & say I want to fix this protected map, how are you able to identify what they really want to do?
4. Maps that have multiple versions because they've been updated (old versions no longer supported) some authors update their maps then no longer supported the outdated versions, how are you going about this?
5. Maps that have been already passed onto a different author but are still being requested to be fixed/deprotected anyways? (regardless of where the state of the map was left upon change of author)
6. Crediting, if someone deprotects/fixes a map should they be allowed a credit?
7. If a map is deprotected/fixed are there plans to reprotect it?
8. Map authors that retire & feel like the job is done & say it's completed or final, are we letting it rest?

I feel like this would take alot to moderate & manage. You would also need staff that are very familiar with the maps & it's original authors.

1. Why does this even matter? Anyone could grab the war3map.w3i of a map and change author at will, so why not rely on the history of the map, and the players that have played it for a long time?
2. Ah yes, grab a magic wand, wink twice, pray to god, then recite the following 5 times: "I call upon thee, Archimonde! Your humble servant seeks an audience!"
And then you find the author of the map by pressing the custom games button.
Enough fooling around, you clearly haven't thought this through, no one will bother trying to find the author in other sites at all, simply if the author isn't either in hive or reachable in wc3 then... you can figure that out yourself.
3. Fool, read his mind obviously, right? Let the guy to the job, if he happens to do anything else other than fix the map and improve it, such as implementing "hidden cheats", I think it's easy to know what's going to happen. I don't know how hard that can be to understand.
4. I don't understand this point at all. What's even the point of supporting an outdated version at all? People want to play the latest version of the map, not some old rusty version.
5. How do you know it was passed to another author? Even if so, same procedure applies
6. If someone deprotects/fixes a map, it should be mentioned somewhere what they fixed and their name, possibly in the author part of the map "edited/fixed by Name"
7. Debatable, but for me, what would be the point of that if the same story could repeat itself later? Also what is "deprotect" and "reprotect"? I suppose your meaning deprotect is to have the map openable by World Editor, but triggers and probably units and destructibles are not there, but in war3map.j. Reprotect...we don't know the consequences of that yet.
8. What does that even mean? If a map is complete or is final version, has no bugs, then most likely there's no reason for anyone to edit. If, however, one finds that it can be improved, why not let he do it? He can do it for his community, they can like it, but you might not like, but then again, that's where your opinion lies and has nothing to do with one editing someone else's map.

I feel like this would take alot to moderate & manage. You would also need staff that are very familiar with the maps & it's original authors.

Yes, because all of the staff knows every mapmaker and every map they made.

I think a method could be considered like it was for substandard resources, any fixed/edited/etc wouldn't usurp the approved or substandard map versions and be in its own section. People will cheat no matter anyways, to allow it would mean it can be monitored and maybe one can try to improve the situation. I am sure any mapper who submits their project wouldn't want to see it disappear without their say so.

I think it would be nicer to have the fix/edited version linked to the original map instead. I don't think many people will look around the substard map section.

 

[Rui]

Time is valuable. The most valuable thing that we have in life is time.

Kudos

What happens if I go to the models section right now and search through 1000 MDX files, find my favorite 15 models, download them all, "improve" them all by replacing their head with Archimonde's head

I understand what you're getting at, but if someone defends they're improving a model by chopping the head and replacing it with Archimonde's, that person's playing dumb. Discussions with a generous level of seriousness and honesty are preferred.

On the subject. I've always defended people are (or should be cough EULA) entitled to the ownership of what they build. They may not pay for it in cash, but they pay for it with time (which takes us back to the first quote ). Again, I'm all for open sourcing maps whose author has disappeared.

 

[LazZ]

I was initially against openly talking about deprotection when I first saw this thread, but after thinking about it for some time I think it's probably a good idea to allow it. Map protection only keeps the noobs away, and those are probably the only people to be concerned about really. I've had people deprotect my maps numerous times, but every single person only did it once, and since I keep working on the map and increasing version numbers those fake copies are already forgotten now. A custom loading screen with author name and official version numbers also helps for some odd reason, because I haven't seen anyone try to edit my maps ever since I started using it. Maybe that's just a coincidence and had more to do with the increasing map complexity.
I feel like this is the biggest concern for creators who are against deprotection, so I just wanted to share my experience.

Anyway, I only see one downside of openly discussing deprotection on Hive and that is it gets even more accessible to said people (the noobs, that is). But I think the benefits outweigh the cost. To restore old broken maps or even translate abandoned non-English maps would be a great addition to the community.

 

[Retera]

But you guys are still going on as though map protection exists, even though I just explained it doesn't...

 

[Chaosy]

Always spat on map protection and always will.

If you have a hyper-popular map lika DotA I understand that you don't want 100 copies floating around with cheats and stuff to ruin the user experience.
This is 0.001% of all maps so I don't think this is a consideration.

One argument I have seen in the past is that the author does not want the user to cheat. Maybe the solution to a puzzle can be found by going through triggers.
Fuck off, let me play how I want.

I learnt a lot from opening maps I played to learn how they did certain things when I was starting out.
And yes, not tech savvy enough to walk around the "protections" at the time.

So I would very much be in favor of taking protected maps, updating and leaving them open source.

 

[GrapesOfWath]

But you guys are still going on as though map protection exists, even though I just explained it doesn't...

You're a respectable guy and all, but I think it's kinda silly to act like this is contributing to the discussion. We all know that map optimizers/widgetizers/whatever don't completely prevent people from editing maps, but they definitely stop lazier/less technologically inclined people from doing so, thus providing some ~protection~ from edits.

Anyway, I use vexorian's for my map. I initially wasn't doing that until someone edited a bunch of changes that were suggested in my discord that I veto'd for good reasons, plus a bunch of nonsense edits like a "flying secret shop" that spawned at map creation before you had units with inventory/enough gold to buy anything, and was pinged on the map every 30 seconds. Once I saw that, I started protecting my map, and while the guy who made the nonsense versions was still attempting to replicate my updates, his replicas were decidedly worse because he wasn't able to open my versions in the editor to copy things anymore, and once I expanded the terrain, he stopped completely. There are plenty of maps that are fun enough for people with bad ideas to want to add to, and more often than not, the people that have bad ideas can find out how to quickly add their bad ideas to an unprotected map, but have no idea how to circumvent a protected map. I myself started out as one of those people with bad ideas, but then like 6 years went by and now one of the authors of the map that I wanted to put ~bad ideas~ in handed over an unprotected copy to me so I can put ~good ideas~ in it.

Having been on both sides of this issue though, I'm still in favor of protection. I don't want to have to worry about some guy with bad ideas making his own version of a map that I'm still actively working on and then have the influx of people in my discord complaining about his edits that I don't have control over, and I also don't want to deal with how insulted I felt when that already happened and the guy claimed he was making his own version but was actively stealing ideas from every update I put out (as well as removing my name from his releases). I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants to avoid problems like this. There are definitely good reasons for map protection. However, that's not really the discussion that this thread was made for. If I eventually drop off the face of the earth, I don't want my map to die with me. However, I don't know if/when that'll happen, and I'm not going to actively release unprotected updates of my map, so I would like for people to be allowed to discuss how to deprotect it if it does happen.

 

[Retera]

So I would very much be in favor of taking protected maps, updating and leaving them open source.

Isn't it a bit daft to declare something open source if it is not open source? Er... can I do that to the Warcraft III Reign of Chaos 2002 game? Let's decide that I can do that to the Warcraft III Reign of Chaos 2002 game right this instant, please.

You're a respectable guy and all, but I think it's kinda silly to act like this is contributing to the discussion. We all know that map optimizers/widgetizers/whatever don't completely prevent people from editing maps, but they definitely stop lazier/less technologically inclined people from doing so, thus providing some ~protection~ from edits.

For many years, what I did on Warcraft III was to try to make an EXE mod that functioned like a third expansion. Over time I lost the source maps or misplaced them for long periods of time, and I just had SLK files of the mod and an ingame Blizzard.j override output from jasshelper nonsense because the libraries I was using got killed with the removal of the return bug, and Vexorian only released his updated version in conjuction with jasshelper, for maps. In order to keep my libraries running I ended up creating a grotesque jass code soup and I learned to write jass without indentation because it was simply how I operated at the time. Amidst the code soup and SLK files of my own creation, I learned to use a modified editor for my modified SLK files and to create w3u changesets against my own mod. And this was my legitimate method of operation, not learned for anything malicious nor to edit "protected maps". I suppose in this way I became an anomaly. Simply by understanding the nature of the Warcraft III game and how it is constructed, and enforcing on myself for a time a paradigm of working with the World Editor's "current map" as something irrelevant, with the destination archive contents as the relevant subject matter, I came to live outside the box.
So, I'm being selfish because from my perspective you're thinking inside the box, and for me perhaps the box does not exist. Perhaps I rewrote the game and in my rewrite the map file is just one of a a layered series of MPQ archives designated in an INI file, and I can just add additional archives as patches to the map in the INI file.

I do not think the addition of my perspective is silly. However, it might not be relevant if you live inside the imaginary box. I'll grant you that. Didn't you ever hear one of those motivational speeches where someone says, "There is no box!"

Edit:

Am I respectable, though? And what makes you say that?

 

[Kakerate]

Map signatures with the cryptographic techniques Retera mentioned would've been a great addition to reforged. As long as the tools to deprotect maps are gated behind trusted admins of THW, and done with the permission/ prolonged absence of the maps' creators, I see no reason to be against allowing map deprotection.

In my mind, it would help usher in a revival of wc3 modding like MemoryHack did in 2016. The Lab section had never been so active from my perspective, and hasn't been since.

 

[Chaosy]

Isn't it a bit daft to declare something open source if it is not open source? Er... can I do that to the Warcraft III Reign of Chaos 2002 game? Let's decide that I can do that to the Warcraft III Reign of Chaos 2002 game right this instant, please.

A map being "protected" is what caused the problem in the first place. How about you know, not repeating the same mistake.

 

[Rayman90]

Considering how many ppl in our world , who like to cheat / steal / ruin other players experience, imo its kinda egoistic to be totally against map protection.

Ive noticed something about most of ppl Ive met who are strongly against map protection. Most of them, in fact, never made / published any rly big and legit popular map. Of course they cant care less about map protection.

And when it comes to ppl who actually managed to make really good and popular maps, Ive almost never met one who was strongly against map protection, Ive never met one who wasnt very annoyed when someone made dumb edits / cheats to his unprotected map / changed author / etc etc. Ive never met one who didnt begin to think how he can protect his map after something bad had happened to it. This list goes on.

Sure, its a bit another story if some map got abandoned by original authors long ago, needs fixing, and is very hard to fix cos its protected. But, tbh, if the map got totally abandoned long ago, if no one has unprotected version, if no one picked up development when the author left and author didnt upload or give someone open source version when he left , if no one willing to recreate it and if it didnt go standalone, probably, there wasnt / isnt any demand for the map to begin with.

Also, I dont see how protecting maps makes learning for new mapmakers significally harder. There are always gonna be a lot of open source maps and systems. There are a lot of guides. There are forums / discord/ lots of ppl willing to help. When it comes to stuff like LUA / TS , there are tons of guides in the internet as well.

 

[Chaosy]

Most of them, in fact, never made / published any rly big and legit popular map

Obviously.

It depends slightly depending on how you define "popular" but in my head popular means way above average.
So yes most people do not have a DotA level of fan base for their maps.
I don't think we should have a rule to protect the 0.0001% from some inconvenience, but that's just me.

Also, I dont see how protecting maps makes learning for new mapmakers significally harder.

It depends, sometimes it's very specific.
For example, a few years back I joined a cinematic contest. I watched APproject's entry and he had moving fog in many of his scenes.
There are no tutorials on that specific detail that I am aware of and the only reason I found out how was because his map was not protected. (admittedly solution was not as mind blowing as I thought at the time, but sush)
He also had some insanely smooth animation transitions, managing to have two units carry a third and throwing the third up on a wagon without it looking yanky. Not seen it done by anyone else before or since.
Yes there is no reason to protect a cinematic, but the cinematic could have been part of an ORPG map or something.

 

[Rayman90]

Obviously.

It depends slightly depending on how you define "popular" but in my head popular means way above average.

In my opinion, "popular" starts when map has good ratings and decent amount of downloads on the sites its uploaded to and gets hosted and played often by different players.

 

[Wrda]

Having been on both sides of this issue though, I'm still in favor of protection. I don't want to have to worry about some guy with bad ideas making his own version of a map that I'm still actively working on and then have the influx of people in my discord complaining about his edits that I don't have control over, and I also don't want to deal with how insulted I felt when that already happened and the guy claimed he was making his own version but was actively stealing ideas from every update I put out (as well as removing my name from his releases). I'm sure I'm not the only one that wants to avoid problems like this. There are definitely good reasons for map protection. However, that's not really the discussion that this thread was made for. If I eventually drop off the face of the earth, I don't want my map to die with me. However, I don't know if/when that'll happen, and I'm not going to actively release unprotected updates of my map, so I would like for people to be allowed to discuss how to deprotect it if it does happen.

Not only that's a solid point but also I feel you. That happened to a map of a friend that he gave me to continue long time ago. One year later working on it and hosting it sometimes, I notice someone hosting the map weeks later that appears to be a new version, and I was confused. After checking it out, it was very different. But the most outrageous part is that the guy removed my name and my friend's name from the author's part, it was now blank. I was simply pissed.
Yet I actually didn't think "Does it affect me that much? I can simply continue working on the map and outplay this guy. I'll also make a warning on the map and claim I'm active and I'm the one who keeps working on the map.".
Yes protection would most likely stop the guy, however, if you have played Troll and Elves recently you'll see there's a thousand fucking versions around, and the map has had actually been protected since...I don't know i've only known the so called "final version" before all these new crappy versions spread out. How is this any different from your experience? Regardless of protection, versions like this can spread like wildfire. Even in Werewolf transylvania, which is protected, there's one version with cheats. Hero Line Wars Roc v5.5, made by Kueken and froggygoggy with the highest form of map protection, there's at least 3 versions with cheats, I posted this story on my first post in this thread.
So the dilema goes on: "protection" or no "protection"? If your map gets famous or attracts a lot of attention, chances are there are going to be people who want to mess around with your map. Protecting it will only reduce the number of people doing that. If your map appears to be somewhat the opposite, there's still going to be some wieners editing your map. If, however, it is protected, chances are that it won't be touched. Just some thoughts.

if I eventually drop off the face of the earth, I don't want my map to die with me. However, I don't know if/when that'll happen, and I'm not going to actively release unprotected updates of my map, so I would like for people to be allowed to discuss how to deprotect it if it does happen.

And why the hell wouldn't you do that? It seems some people don't know what "deprotection" really is. Deprotection is only the state of being possible to open the map in World Editor, nothing else, nothing more. If you save the map, it won't be openable after, you have to deprotect it again. If you place a unit/item, and, sometimes a destructible, depending on the type of protection, you can save the map, but same issue happens and most likely breaks the map, impossible to host because the code for the preplaced object doesn't exist in war3map.j. So every data is possible to recover even the in protected state of the map, war3map.j is the only file that depending on type of protection can be a pain in the ass to deal with, I'm talking about obfuscated names. One has to know the map very well to work and decipher everything, which can take literally months.

Considering how many ppl in our world , who like to cheat / steal / ruin other players experience, imo its kinda egoistic to be totally against map protection.

I got a genious solution for you: leave the game, delete the map with cheats and host the legitimate version. Is that so hard to do? Protection doesn't exist in first place nor stops cheaters.

Ive noticed something about most of ppl Ive met who are strongly against map protection. Most of them, in fact, never made / published any rly big and legit popular map. Of course they cant care less about map protection.

Ah yes, the famous ad hominem fallacy. When you have no good arguments, always make up some bullshit to invalidate your opponents. How about... I do the exact same thing?
I've noticed something about most of people I've met who are strongly for map protection. Most of them, in fact, don't understand that map protection doesn't stop anything. They will go beyond the depths of corrupting their own map for the sake of "cheats" and "editings", and then leave wc3 for good and screw everyone else. Of course they can't care less about the community.

And when it comes to ppl who actually managed to make really good and popular maps, Ive almost never met one who was strongly against map protection, Ive never met one who wasnt very annoyed when someone made dumb edits / cheats to his unprotected map / changed author / etc etc. Ive never met one who didnt begin to think how he can protect his map after something bad had happened to it. This list goes on.

Because only popular maps count, right? I'm yet to see what constitutes as "popular" other than DotA. You don't have to be for protection to be annoyed at someone edting your map adding cheats or anything else, your assumptions and biases are incredible.

Sure, its a bit another story if some map got abandoned by original authors long ago, needs fixing, and is very hard to fix cos its protected. But, tbh, if the map got totally abandoned long ago, if no one has unprotected version, if no one picked up development when the author left and author didnt upload or give someone open source version when he left , if no one willing to recreate it and if it didnt go standalone, probably, there wasnt / isnt any demand for the map to begin with.

No one wants to recreate a map if they have the one which is the base map that has everything.

Also, I dont see how protecting maps makes learning for new mapmakers significally harder. There are always gonna be a lot of open source maps and systems. There are a lot of guides. There are forums / discord/ lots of ppl willing to help. When it comes to stuff like LUA / TS , there are tons of guides in the internet as well.

There's nothing better than having the option to see how something's done directly from the source, especially for very specific things. Just because there are a lot of source maps, system, guides, forums, discords or whatever, doesn't mean they cover the one thing a user wants to know.

 

[Rayman90]

I got a genious solution for you: leave the game, delete the map with cheats and host the legitimate version. Is that so hard to do? Protection doesn't exist in first place nor stops cheaters.

Many players wouldnt even know that there is in fact a legit version somewhere. When they encounter some dumb edits / cheaters / etc, they will simply make a conclusion that the map is bad and wont join it anymore when they see it in a list.


Its much harder to edit map with good protection then edit map with no protection at all.

Sure. "Oh , some ppl with good wc3 and IT knowledge will be able to edit my map, so better not to protect map at all"
Epic logic...

Map protection CAN stop something. Something is better then nothing. Breaking news.

Ah yes, the famous ad hominem fallacy. When you have no good arguments, always make up some bullshit to invalidate your opponents. How about... I do the exact same thing?
I've noticed something about most of people I've met who are strongly for map protection. Most of them, in fact, don't understand that map protection doesn't stop anything. They will go beyond the depths of corrupting their own map for the sake of "cheats" and "editings", and then leave wc3 for good and screw everyone else. Of course they can't care less about the community.

What ? My point was, looks like most of ppl who have never made popular maps cant understand feelings of ones who actually have made something and then got their maps reputation damaged by edits. So its kinda hard to take them seriously.

and then leave wc3 for good and screw everyone else. Of course they can't care less about the community.

If the authors decided to leave wc3 and not update their map anymore, its their right to do so. Its not like their community paid them. Of course if authors received donations its another story probably.

If some old unsupported game gets broken by new windows, does it mean that devs of that game "screwed and abandoned their community" ?

And btw all good and popular maps I know are perfectly playable and get updates. As to "over 9000 best maps ever that got abandoned and broken by evil blizz patches" , idk , never heard of them.