Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Map Piracy [Resolved-*Lock me*]

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    @ Angel_Mapper & Boksha:

    :haha: !

    That's perfect, it's two schools of "mapping" nicely summarized.

    Eye- candy: "That wouldn't satisfy my artistic needs."

    Competition: "That'd be a pain in the ***."


    And then, somewhere between the two poles you have a third possibility: trying to create a complete environment without structure could be pretty interesting, while a good sense of geomorphic design could well make such an approach meet more needs than you might expect -- probably not all, but enough to lighten the load significantly.

    I think the idea at least bears investigation, and (he said lazily) if nobody else tries it out I might make my own lame attempt some time. I can at least work with PS, and some simple meshes aren't outside my scope...


    Anyway, it's pretty clear there's a difference of opinion on the rights and wrongs of ripping. Some creators care, some don't. Try to remember, that makes it kind of confusing for the average lunkhead, so don't get too bent out of shape about it. It might be irritating and rude, but it's rarely evil- intentioned and I doubt it causes much in the way of substantial harm.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by -=¤willhaven¤=-
    When your map is final and ready for release, delete all the BSP brushes and save the map for upload somewhere. Makes map piracy much harder.
    doing a full rebuild, then deleting the brushes without a rebuild, the map still works?

    I think if anyone makes a map and releases it to the world, make sure you are fully credited in the map.

    You've done your work and others may anjoy your work play the map and enjoy.

    Should someone snag architecture and stuff and make a new map, well, they took one idea and popped it to another map idea and made a new map out of it.

    They should credit the original map maker(s) and maybe reference their work.
    It is just having decency in the mappage world but its not always there.
    Theres plenty of Face variations and Deck 16, and even fixed problems in those maps.

    I always try to put credit where due in my work, if some piece of work is found and the resource cant be recalled or found, I try to note that.

    Just remember someone snagging mappage won't have the full mapping skilz, but their working the editor, and Ued is always a learning experience.

    Just remember you post up a map, its a sharing experience.

    Point is I have a notice in my references, you may copy and use the map whatever, but if you place it for sale in some form, well, shoot me some money, I worked hard on it....8-D

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Not to mention that unless you place your static meshes in the design phase, placing non-custom (not specifically made for your map) static meshes is a real pain.
    I agree the "Theme" approach probably isn't going to work.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    In an ideal world yes, but if it were going to happen it would be happening now. As it is very few artists operate that way (at least in the Unreal engine). Making a bunch of static meshes is meh compared to being able to use those to create your own world to put them in. I know for me at least, it would bug me that other people were getting credit for use of the meshes (different from credit for making them).

    Plus you have to realize that not all mappers are in it to make a portfolio, so just making static meshes would be very boring.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Angel_Mapper
    But like you said, putting your work out to the community is good advertising as a lot of devs hang out here, and not just from Epic. As for the gameplay, it wouldn't need to be all that great if you're just looking to get noticed by companies to be an artist (for example, you'd hire Angelheart even though his maps don't play well).
    Right... but there's only one Angelheart, yeah?

    Now. How to get this all condensed properly.

    As things currently stand, if an artist wants to get the kind of exposure that comes from a community release, he/ she generates the art and then goes through the tedium (I'm sure plenty of you feel that way) of generating a map to showcase it... this despite the fact (as assumed) that the artist is mainly interested in making art and really CBA with design issues.

    So, the artist makes the art map, it gets ooohed and aaaahed for about 2 weeks offline, and then drops off the face of the Earth because it isn't really preferred for online play.

    Then on the other hand, you've got the layout genius who's functionally colorblind... this guy makes great playing maps that look so- so at best. These maps are adored by competitors but never make it on the pub scene because they aren't pretty enough... meanwhile people get bored because of mediocre gameplay.

    And it all HAS to be this way because of the system- wide obsession with some kind of playground version of DRM. If you made it, you and only you should use it... even if you can't necessarily put it to its best use.


    Now, here's the radical vision of how things could be.

    IMO artists should make art, and designers should design, and neither should have to suffer through the disliked part of the job (and thereby subject the community to the hardcore tease of half- finished work). Here's how that happens:

    Artists don't make maps. Instead, artists make themes. There are a few popular (read: overused) themes currently extant in UE2: Egyptian/ desert, "big trees everywhere", UT industrial rehash, urban. Probably a few more.

    Now what if, instead of wasting time making showcase maps, artists instead generated fully- developed "theme packs" which included a full array of textures, deco meshes, walkways, small buildings maybe, and possibly even ambient sounds (inclination, ability and equipment permitting). Once the artist felt the theme was complete, he/ she could release it under the blanket "I don't GAF what you do with this" license and move on to the next project. That way, the artist wouldn't have to do anything but art and would quickly build up a much fuller portfolio... along with the initial splash of a public release.

    Then, as the theme gets tossed around the community you'll probably see a whole slew of beginners' maps, but... if the theme was cool and well- executed you'd probably see some layout geniuses who wanted to take a crack at developing it.

    And of course, if you were sure you had a winner on your hands, you could always shop it directly to a talented mapper and forego the general release.

    The end result, in all likelihood, would be a wider array of custom maps that both looked good and played good and thus achieved broader popularity... this would be good for the players, good for the artists, good for the designers, good for the game as a whole. In other words, good for the community. Further, it would allow creative types to focus more fully on their chosen concentration, it would optimise system- wide productivity (in terms of quantity, quality and overall "fahrvergnugen") and everybody would get loads of CV material out of it.

    Dunno 'bout you, but it sounds like a win- win to me.

    The open source movement has understood this for years. It was a boat that the UT crowd missed with UE2 and one that they'll proabably wish they were on come UE3 and the rise of the normalmap monster. All you have to do to achieve this is to realize which of your "digital rights" are helping you, and which ones you're tripping over.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by RFMOO
    While it sounds all nice and rosy to say that all the work done by mappers and modders should be instantly and freely available source material for all others, like we are all one big happy commune or something, I don't think it is realistic.
    It's perfectly realistic if Epic and cohorts have had the good sense to declare anything created out of the soil of their demense to be quote unquote open source, which God willing they have and long ago.

    Because there's an infinite supply of peasants willing to pick up your hoe when you throw it down in disgust.

    Don't like it? Get a job.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    The Sun was one of the first things man has given a name. It was unique then, cause people didn't know how the universe was like.
    Stars were something different in that time.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    RMFOO pretty much said what I think of it.
    Opening maps/mods to see how they done things and learn how to do fancy stuff yourself: GOOOD.
    Editing/reproducing mods without the original authors consent: BAAAD.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by kevinroe327
    Wait, I thought it was a moon!
    The full moon?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Princess_Frosty
    Im going to argue about the sun because its more interesting that this legal mumbo jumbo.

    The "Sun", is the name we have given the star which is central to our Solar System. Although their is no restriction to give another star the same name, it just wouldn't be very useful, as far as names go. :up:
    Wait, I thought it was a moon!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I just wanted to mention that this topic (the original one anyway) applies not just to maps, but to mods and mutators as well. It's not very cool to take bits and pieces of other people's mods and mutators either. Yet this happens often.

    There's not much you can do about it, and arguing legal terms seems pretty silly. The main thing you can do I guess is rely on the 'community' to put a negative stigma on those types of practices, and maybe even pressure those folks to stop what they are doing. In the past, this has worked fairly well.

    But what concerns me the most is the growing number of gamers who seem to think that this type of behavior is OK. Even attempting to justify it with such outrageous claims as "it's doing the community a service". It is my opinion that those claims cannot be farther from the truth.

    While it sounds all nice and rosy to say that all the work done by mappers and modders should be instantly and freely available source material for all others, like we are all one big happy commune or something, I don't think it is realistic.

    As has been mentioned already on the topic of maps, sometimes folks work very hard, and often for extended periods of time, to create features for mods and mutators as well. It can be pretty disheartening after all that work to see pieces of it taken apart and repackaged and re-released. Especially, as has been mentioned, when so many times it happens with not so much as a request made, and/or credit given.

    To claim that treating fellow gamers who have freely donated their time and skills in this manner is "helping the community", seems pretty bizarre to me.

    On one of the other topics here - I don't believe there is any general problems with the common uses of terms like "sun" or "star". The sun is a medium sized star. And while there are many types of stars out there, not all of them share the same qualities as our sun.

    A better question nowadays is trying to define the term "planet". Lot's of ongoing discussion there.

    And of course whether or not a planet in orbit around a star similiar to our sun might have someone looking back at us. :alien: I want to believe that it's true, and the odds are in my favor. (but remember, when they come, they're going to eat the fat ones first!)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by maurice2
    ****, what was the topic now?
    comedy

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by =XM=
    I think that MajikMyst is a needed comedy relief for this thread which would otherwise get too serious.
    Tss, tss, what a silly boy I am *smacks forehead* and all along I thought he was serious.

    Sorry MajikMyst, do keep up the tom-foolery, it really is most entertaining. :haha:

    [on-topic]
    ****, what was the topic now?

    - Map resource piracy?
    - The existential meaning of (the/a) sun?
    - International copyright law
    [/on-topic]

    *frowns and scratches head*

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by MajikMyst
    We call our star a sun, that by no means that you couldn't use the word sun to describe another star. Our planet revolves around our star. Someone else's planet revolves around another star, and they could also call that a sun.

    In short a sun is simply a general term and doesn't identify anything. Neither does the word star, but at least star is more scientifically accepted.

    Your ignorance is duly noted.
    Again you are wrong. First of all, its not 'a sun', its 'the sun'. Sun is not a general term, its a specific term for a specific object, and it does identify something, it identifies the star in the center of our solar system.

    And who cares if "someone" else used the word sun to describe the star they revolve around? Thats like saying once someone uses Alex or John or Susy or Jill for their first name nobody else could use it, and if they did it would somehow diminish the meaning of that word. People usually say you should quit while you are ahead, but in your case you should quit while your behind, because you just keep going farther and farther back. Then again, many people are taking great pleasure in reading your stupid posts. Maybe you should keep posting to keep some humor in this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by =XM=
    I think that MajikMyst is a needed comedy relief for this thread which would otherwise get too serious.
    :haha::up:

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X