I know this isn't really a new map, but I have yet to grasp the concepts of Hammer. Until then, I will be modifying the stock maps by doing some severe hex-editing to them. Not just using Darkulator to change lightlevels.

dod_donner is my favorite map, so I thought why not do this one first. Here is a list of things I have done to the map so far :

1. Changed sky texture.
2. Changed light level.
3. Removed rain.
4. Changed ambience around. Now instead of 2 or 3 ambiences playing at once, there is only 1.
5. I noticed the smoke above the tank at the center flag and how it drops the FPS alot. Since I want the most FPS out of the map, I went ahead and removed those 2 particleshooters. Now you can look at or pass the tank with no shortage of FPS.

That is what I have done in about 45 minutes. I plan on over-hauling the map by just having the .bsp as a base.

I also have a slightly modified minimap and overview .txt file.

Post your thoughts on its status so far. Remember, this is only 45 minutes into the mapping process. Got alot more to do.

Thanks.

http://www.dodstudios.net/uploads/uploads/dod_donner2.jpg

Do you have Xerents permission?

No, but I plan on giving credit where credit is due. Anyways, this won't be released for awhile, so I'm not worried about that until I go to release it.

hmm, starting to look like the MSA forums round here.

Mappers are very protective of their work, unlike some msa folks.
I know I would not want anyone fiddling around with one of my maps.

you cant just remake/edit a map at your free will, you must get permission from the creator and only then can you edit/remake a map or model or skin, etc.

I think it looks nice. I like the atmosphere.

I am fairly certain the DoD team said all files included in the DoD install are open for editage by anyone so long as credit is given.

That is correct.
Just as the HalfLife files were "open source" for modders, now that DoD has "gone public", the same applies.

Credit where it's due, and I'm sure if Xerent has concerns he will let you know.

Perhaps one of the DoD Team can drop in and clarify the policy for us.

were is everyone getting the rmf or .map files or you decompiling the maps ?

Yes, it is an official map owned by Valve, so you can edit it however you want, though reverse compiling won't yield you a map you can edit, then recompile without a great deal of pain.

on the other hand, if you would like to try to duplicate the map brush by brush and edit to your heart's desire, give it your best shot. is that legal? well, yes. knock yourself out.

it's pretty late and i'm tired and punchy...so i'll wrap it up by saying

please talk to xerent about this

dooder, You can't just decompile someones map and give credit...
its valves property.

I can't stop you from doing this, since Valve owns the rights to the map. I can draw a parallel to cs_assault, an official Valve-owned map, that has been remade a hundred times. Why should dod_donner be any different?

However, you should not call the map dod_donner2. Call it dod_donner_day, dod_donner_2k3, dod_donner_lollercoaster or something else.

And I don't really know what to think. A ****load of work went into this map, and I demand _FULL_ credit.

you people need to be more original. really. :rolleyes:

You people need to seriously brush up on your EULA understandings.

According to Activision, you cannot disassemble anything in the DoD Retail 1.0 release.

For your edification...

From the Activision EULA...

"You agree not to:

* Make copies of the Program or any part thereof, except for back up or archival purposes, or make copies of the materials accompanying the Program.

*Reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, or disassemble the Program, in whole or in part. (the maps are parts of the program for legal purposes - in case you still haven't figured that out)

Want to know the penalties for violating the very specific legal terms of the EULA?

From the Activision EULA...

"INJUNCTION: Because Activision or Valve would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this Agreement were not specifically enforced, you agree that Activision and Valve shall be entitled, without bond, other security or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this Agreement, in addition to such other remedies as Activision or Valve may otherwise have under applicable laws."

Bottom line...it doesn't matter if a mapper gives you permission to edit anything for distribution. They're completely legally irrelevant. You must obtain express written permission from Activision's legal department before doing anything to go against the specific as well as implied intent of this documentation.

You can reach them here...

If you have any questions concerning this license, you may contact Activision at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405, USA, (310) 255-2000, Attn. Business and Legal Affairs, legal@activision.com.

Good luck...this is no longer a freely exchanged/editable piece of software. There were MANY important distinctions in DOD becoming a retail product and being published by Activision.

Quite frankly and technically speaking...it doesn't even matter if a member of the DOD Team gives you permission. They are no longer the authority. You must receive a blessing from the Activision legal department before doing anything. So, yes, even if someone on the team says "go ahead and do it"...a lawyer representing Activision's interest can still come after you.

And no...I'm not being picky...I'm being careful. Anyone distributing files for this game can NO LONGER do so as openly as we have in the past.

Custom map distribution is different. The legal permission is granted through licensing to distribute custom levels for the game so long as they are done so in non-profit and non-commercial settings *AND* provided they are not derivative works. Thusly, if someone takes dod_donner and converts it into dod_donner2...they are severely in breach of the binding terms of this EULA. May the force be with anyone brave enough to do that. I know I wouldn't want to take on a multi-million dollar corporation.

The times have changed folks...be careful...that's all I'm saying...

Happy Gaming,

What youre trying to say is that it's illegal to make custom sounds, models, and maps for this game? :(

oh ffs.

Make your own map with own brushwork. Use your imagination.

When you make something and succeed, it's a good feeling. Does this give u good feeling when u edit someones good and beautiful map and release some screenshots from it?

I hate this. End of rant.

Originally posted by kleinluka
you people need to be more original. really. :rolleyes:

That too...you want to copy a good map? Copy dod_thunder...

;)

Originally posted by xerent
What youre trying to say is that it's illegal to make custom sounds, models, and maps for this game? :(

No...I'm not saying any of it...Activision is.

If anything is a derivative work...it's illegal. However, maps can be created and distributed...as they are "original" creations under the intent of this EULA, except in cases where they rip off anything in the packaged (copyright protected) product.

Thus...if you have totally original sounds...you can distribute whatever you want. However, if you take original 1.0 sounds and simply resample them or whatever...you're in violation of a EULA for a retail product.

Moving from mod world to the store shelves carries an entirely new legal environment. I can't stress enough how careful people should be.

That's why I raised the question early on about some sites openly distributing retail maps. I wanted an official response from someone authorized to give it. There was (AND STILL IS) a lot of gray area.

Happy Gaming,

Originally posted by Hulk Bogan
That too...you want to copy a good map? Copy dod_thunder...

;)

Valve possesses the rights to dod_thunder also :p

Originally posted by xerent
Valve possesses the rights to dod_thunder also :p

Point being....................sorely missed...........

Go figure...

Activision can go get stuffed.. for all I care, and take their lawyers to hell with them.... I don't have Activisions version, nor do I intend to get it... Therefore Activisions EULA, doesn't apply to me, only Valves... If that... since there was no EULA that I can recall in the DoD 1.0 Mod version... (I know I was looking for it)...

Oh and as a side note.. Valve owns the rights, to DoD, not Activision... Activision is purely the publisher.. and under law, the data files for the game (IE Maps) do not come under the "Decompile" sections of the EULA, since they are not executable programs, which have no "Source Code"... They are not executable. They fall under intellectual property laws because they are a creative work. The engine files, and dll's however are executable files, which fall under the decompile section (you will note, the EULA as you quoted it specifically states "Program".. not "Program or data files"...)....

Edit: as a side note, program is, precidently set, as being defined as the executable, or associated DLL files, required for the program to execute. Maps are NOT required for the program to execute. They however are required to have any fun with the executing program. :)

Sorry if I didn't say this earlier, as to avoid all this confusion.

I never said I decompiled the map. I'm not that unoriginal. What I am doing is what I did to the stock maps in MOHAA. I am taking whats already a sweet map, and making it even sweeter if possible. All of this is done by hex-editing the .bsp file. I know exactly how to do this, and what to change in the .bsp to make certain things happen, so thats why I decided to try this out until I can fully grasp Hammer. You would be amazed what you can still do without decompiling. The end result is going to look quite different from the original map.

As I said in my last post, Xerent will get FULL credit for the original design and making of the map. Only things I take credit for are the changes that I make to the map. And thats all.

Again, I apologize for any confusion. Because of Xerent's request for me to change the mapname, I will find a new mapname and update this thread with it once I make a decision on what that name will be.

Now, back to the map. :D

Originally posted by Cyber-Surfer Activision can go get stuffed.. for all I care, and take their lawyers to hell with them.... I don't have Activisions version, nor do I intend to get it... Therefore Activisions EULA, doesn't apply to me, only Valves... If that... since there was no EULA that I can recall in the DoD 1.0 Mod version... (I know I was looking for it)...

As for them getting stuffed...I have no opinion. Lawyers going to hell? What are the chances? There was no acceptance required of Valve's EULA because it was not included in the mod version. Why? Probably forgotten. I highly doubt they will (for all intents and purposes) allow a different set of rules to apply to the mod version, as its essentially the same game. And is this unclear? You bet it is. However, it's always good to be on the safe side of caution in these cases. I have no idea why the mod version is without EULA...even the beta versions carried them. Again, probably oversight.

Oh and as a side note.. Valve owns the rights, to DoD, not Activision... Activision is purely the publisher.. and under law, the data files for the game (IE Maps) do not come under the "Decompile" sections of the EULA, since they are not executable programs, which have no "Source Code"... They are not executable. They fall under intellectual property laws because they are a creative work. The engine files, and dll's however are executable files, which fall under the decompile section (you will note, the EULA as you quoted it specifically states "Program".. not "Program or data files"...)....

While that may very well be the case, Activision is specifically listed as the legal consultant for Valve's DOD. I would suspect there is an official arrangement of some sort as a result of this "partnership" of sorts. Under law my friend, you are completely incorrect as a result of the following quote from the Activision EULA (btw...I highly suggest you read something before making a definitive post about it)...

From the Activision EULA...

"THE "PROGRAM" INCLUDES ALL SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH THIS AGREEMENT, THE ASSOCIATED MEDIA, ANY PRINTED MATERIALS, AND ANY ON-LINE OR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTATION, AND ANY AND ALL COPIES OF SUCH SOFTWARE AND MATERIALS."

It would appear to me they've taken the intelligent approach and defined their own terms under their EULA. Program, had it not been specifically defined, might very well exclude maps and such as you stated. However, a simple reading states otherwise. It very obviously states the program includes everything...even associated media ;) Your statement is incorrect. Maps are software...all software in this package is considered the program...despite your personal interpretation.

Edit: as a side note, program is, precidently set, as being defined as the executable, or associated DLL files, required for the program to execute. Maps are NOT required for the program to execute. They however are required to have any fun with the executing program. :)

See my previous comment and the related quote from the Activision EULA.

Anyway...the smart thing to do is read something before assuming too much. Assumptions are often wrong...especially in legal issues. As I run a file hosting site...I'm paranoid about things like this. Anyone with sense should be...that is, anyone hosting parts of this program for download. To the average player/mapper...it means nothing really.

Again...some of us really need clarification on some of these issues. There are simply too many unknowns.

That's all I'm saying...

Agreed with Hulk. There are the EULA isn't very specific on these kind of matters.

Still, the fact of the matter is that you're altering the BSP. Okay, you're not doing it with a decompiler, but a hex compiler. Basically, you're still doing the same thing, altering the code that makes up xer's map.

Lot's of mappers are highly frowning upon this. The result may be very sweet, but you will get tons of critics because you're merely altering someone elses work.
So even without discussing the 'legal' issues here, you're still on loose sand regarding the harsh reactions of the mappingcommunity.

If you really want to become a mapper: use your time to learn how to work with Hammer instead of altering maps with a hexeditor.

Last, I for one will never accept that people are altering my maps showing of their screenshots here before asking my permission to do this!!!!

Even though permission is nice to have, it isn't required as long as I give credit exactly where credit is due.

I'm not just doing this to copy other people's work. This is taking awesome maps and taking them to another level. I did an excellent job of this in MOHAA, and I plan on doing the same here. It isn't about light levels and sky textures, its about atmosphere and the layout of the map. Thats what I am doing this for.

On a sidenote, I have found a new name for the map. It will now be called dod_donner_licht. Meaning dod_donner_light in German.

I have to agree with Inch and pretty much everyone else who has replied. If you are serious about mapping, your time would be better spent reading tutorials and figuring out the basics of Hammer, than Hex editing Xerent's map. Please, I beg of you, go to the Mapping FAQ, Valve-ERC, Vlatitude, Handy Vandal, etc. and learn to make your own material. It will feel so much better when you release something that you did on your own.

On a side note,
I've noticed a lot of threads popping up lately about "re-texturing", "re-lighting", etc. and it is quite frankly making me sick. Whoever had said this is turning out to be the MSA forums, is exactly right. I hate how people feel that they can just alter a piece of this, and a piece of that, then put it out as something worth releasing. These threads I fear are taking attention off of those whom are being creative, original, and trying new things.

I think there needs to be a policy adopted in the Mapping forums about these 'editing' actions. I fear that we will see many versions of stock maps, thus creating some confusion as to what map a server is truly running.

Originally posted by Jay20016
I have to agree with Inch and pretty much everyone else who has replied. If you are serious about mapping, your time would be better spent reading tutorials and figuring out the basics of Hammer, than Hex editing Xerent's map. Please, I beg of you, go to the Mapping FAQ, Valve-ERC, Vlatitude, Handy Vandal, etc. and learn to make your own material. It will feel so much better when you release something that you did on your own.

On a side note,
I've noticed a lot of threads popping up lately about "re-texturing", "re-lighting", etc. and it is quite frankly making me sick. Whoever had said this is turning out to be the MSA forums, is exactly right. I hate how people feel that they can just alter a piece of this, and a piece of that, then put it out as something worth releasing. These threads I fear are taking attention off of those whom are being creative, original, and trying new things.

I think there needs to be a policy adopted in the Mapping forums about these 'editing' actions. I fear that we will see many versions of stock maps, thus creating some confusion as to what map a server is truly running.

Good points Jay...

I think, as a result of the strict terms of the EULA, they are interested in actually enforcing some kind of quality control...I doubt they're changing things "just because they can". If I were a retail project lead...you can bank on the fact that quality control becomes tightly protected.

Whether people realize it or not...it's now possible for poor custom creations to directly impact a company's earning potential. That's risky business. It doesn't matter how many players with "important opinions" on why EULA's are bad come along...it's a slightly more serious environment now. The business of being in business is not a kid's game. Kids will learn...hopefully not the hard way.

Maybe we can get clarification from the proper party one day...until then...it's confusing...and I feel uncertain about distribution of files in this retail world.

Later,

Hulk,

While I understand your postion, and I can sympathize.. Really I can.. The problem is that EULA are designed to give the company the maximum control, and legal authority, though atleast in California, it has been proven that EULA's in whole or in part (Depending on court, and wording) have not held up in court, they do usually.. That being said, I never agreed to a EULA when I installed DoD 1.0 Mod version, one was never presented.. and I still have my 1.0 Version install file for exactly that reason. To present as evidence if ever needed that I never agreed with, nor was I ever asked to agree to a EULA about the DoD Mod. :)

Therefore Activision has 0 legs to stand on in court with me atleast, because I never agreed, nor was I asked to agree to, their EULA.

That being said, I highly doubt they would do anything that would dissuade or hamper the mod community. I doubt Valve's agreement with them would undermine everything that they've done for the last 5 years.

Valve was one of the first truely Mod friendly and Custom Content friendly developers out there. It's what they've based their success on with Half-Life. And I doubt they would do anything to jeopardize that, especially when they will be relying on that loyal and rabid fan base, to purchase Half-Life 2 later this year.


Also.. for refference:

Source: The American Herritage Dictionary:
soft·ware ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sôftwâr, sft-)
n. Computer Science
The programs, routines, and symbolic languages that control the functioning of the hardware and direct its operation.


Again, the maps do not fall under software, as they do not directly affect the function of the hardware, or it's operation. The programs and .dl's do.. :) They are still data files, that the program uses to determine it's function, and how to manipulate the hardware (IE Processor, soundcard, and video card respectively), but they do not directly (directly being the key word), affect the hardware.

Trust me I do my research. I did Paralegal work for over 2 years.. It's amazing what you learn when you spend 90% of your business time in a law library. The fact is that law is fairly literal in it's application. That being said, as I said, the fact that I wasn't presented with a EULA when I installed the MOD version of DoD, right there is grounds for dismissal of any and all claims activision may present to a court of law, regarding my activities. Since I did not agree to one, nor was I presented with one, the provisions of said agreement are not in force or affect towards me or any of the persons who Downloaded the DoD Mod. Also. Valve's EULA, I'd wager you would find is very similar to the Activision EULA, which btw, we all agreed to, since we've been playing DoD as a mod, we've had to agree to the Valve EULA, when we installed HL, (Though finding said EULA, is a bit difficult these days), and the provisions, I'd wager are either identical, or 99% similar, and after 5 years, I highly doubt Valve is going to worry about maps and such. Heck last I checked they permitted commercial use of HL, for Mod Teams.. But on that I may be mistaken, but I swear I did read it somewhere, on a news site, concerning the modding community.

I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other.. just giving you my input. Being carefull is always more prudent than being reckles.. I just feel that after 5 years, your not going to see anything drastically change... Now if people were to start ripping DoD, or HL, and changing a few things, and turning around and selling it.. I'm fairly certain that Valve, and/or Activision would be on them like white on rice.. but Customizing, and Editing for non-commercial gain, is most likely not going to raise even a whisper of concern because as long as you don't pirate DoD Retail, or make it so that non-half-life owners can run DoD, or other mods, or even the base HL, then your just feeding Valve/Activisions wallet by building the community, and to stop you would be shooting themselves in the bottom line..

Just my .05 worth

I very much agree with Jay.

I think an offical policy should be made on the re-makes of official/old maps.

I'm very much against this new evolution of 're-styling' new maps with a few new textures and altering some of the bsp's code.

I see it as showing a bit of disrespect toward the mappers intentions and talent.

I am trying to keep my cool here, but if all you are going to do is ***** about this, then fine, I'll just ****in' forget it. Sorry I even wasted my time trying to work on the map. You happy now, with your legal docs and talks of hate.

I'll just trash the map and make an "original" map as you quote it. Sorry to inconvinience you.

You can still apply for commercial licensing arrangements with Activision...again as a provision in its EULA.

As for the other points you made......I'll just casually agree to disagree. I've actually had a copyright attorney do work for me this past year. I learned quite a bit about Texas copyright law as it pertains to software licensing...and well...to say the least...your situation and interpretation in California...does not apply here. To sum it up...if a publisher defines terms and provisions...the court does not assert its own interpretation. It tries to follow the intention of the software publisher...even citing "the intent" of the EULA in such cases.

Anyway....I'm not wanting to turn this into a legal discussion...as that would no doubt put the typical readers of this site to sleep...all I'm saying is...some of us out here, trying to support the community, need to know the details before making moves.

Perhaps I'm more guarded than I should be...as a result of my professional occupation. Local competitors of mine were shut down by the FBI as a result of federal agents discovering what was essentially a "mom and pop" software manufacturing company. That, combined with my own personal OEM status with several companies (one being Microsoft)...you can best bet I have to stay on the ball to keep up with licensing changes, events, etc. God forbid we accidentally do something to lose our licensing and reseller status that we've worked so many years to acquire.

Granted dod is far from a business, and more of a hobby for me and a few of my employees...the fact that I get paranoid around confusing terms of software licensing sort of just "comes" with the territory of being a file host...and all the other things I've mentioned.

Anyway...............I totally agree they shouldn't do anything to HARM the mod community...as Valve had GREAT foresight several years ago about what the community could become...despite all the people that attack them so frequently. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they won't do anything...even if not intending to screw with things ;) Sometimes accidents happen.

I think I've rambled on this subject enough...bottom line...I'd hate for anything to screw with custom content for the game.

One final question...if maps are not protected under a EULA that classifies them as a "program"...how is it that the California court system is better able to define what constitutes "software" not enforceable under EULA terms than the content creators (or publishers, etc.) are?

Must be too many Berkeley grads in the court systems out there ;)

Later,

Originally posted by 1944
I am trying to keep my cool here, but if all you are going to do is ***** about this, then fine, I'll just ****in' forget it. Sorry I even wasted my time trying to work on the map. You happy now, with your legal docs and talks of hate.

I'll just trash the map and make an "original" map as you quote it. Sorry to inconvinience you.

Actually...if you'd read closely...this legal discussion would tend to support your right to do just about anything you want with just about any map...er, at least in California ;)

I couldn't care less about a map discussion...I'm focusing on potentially the larger issue...that is...mappers and their rights and the EULA and how that EULA affects mappers and their rights...and so on...and so on.

No one is *****ing either. Using most other threads as an example...this is a rather "cerebral" discussion.

Don't get me wrong...I encourage creativity...no one really knows where the next "hall of fame" map might come from...but damn it...I want to cover my butt in hosting files in this "new era" of retail dod.

I say go for it and do what you want...to hell with other people's opinions...if that's what you truly want to do...don't let someone stop you.

Sorry for the previous attitude. I have never modded for DoD before, so I didn't know that the community didn't like folks modifying stock maps. In MOHAA, modifying stock maps is rampant and people encourage it.

I'll work on this in alittle bit, but as someone said earlier, I should really make my own map. And that is what I'm doing now. I was messing with Hammer, and actually got some stuff done, but still having some headaches with entities. Thanks for the words of advice. Hope to show some real screenshots shortly.

Later.

Wow, its really easy to work with Hammer. I just didn't take the time to really get into it.

I am so used to the MOHAA editor, MOHRadiant. This is 10x different, but now that I got a fully lit room with correctly scaled textures, I think this could be a fun project.

Thanks for bashing some sense into me. :D

Originally posted by 1944
Wow, its really easy to work with Hammer. I just didn't take the time to really get into it.

I am so used to the MOHAA editor, MOHRadiant. This is 10x different, but now that I got a fully lit room with correctly scaled textures, I think this could be a fun project.

Thanks for bashing some sense into me. :D

No problem...let me know if you need a host...

God man what is with these people and their remakes? cant they be more creative! :p

Originally posted by 1944
Sorry for the previous attitude. I have never modded for DoD before, so I didn't know that the community didn't like folks modifying stock maps. In MOHAA, modifying stock maps is rampant and people encourage it.
Later.
I think the main reason that people's opinions of this practice in the DoD community are different is because we know the mappers who created these maps - there's more of a "closeness," if you will, with the development team of DoD than there is with MOH:AA for example.

I got a couple of questions, and I don't want to waste another thread posting them.

-How do you select a face of a brush? The editor help file says just click the face in 3D view, but that selects the whole brush.

-How do I apply a caulk texture. The texture that you apply to brush faces that the player won't see, so you can maximize the FPS.

-Lastly, how do I add ambience to my map? Would be much better with it.

Thanks.

Originally posted by 1944
I got a couple of questions, and I don't want to waste another thread posting them.

-How do you select a face of a brush? The editor help file says just click the face in 3D view, but that selects the whole brush.

-How do I apply a caulk texture. The texture that you apply to brush faces that the player won't see, so you can maximize the FPS.

-Lastly, how do I add ambience to my map? Would be much better with it.

Thanks.
1. Texture Application tool. New bar will pop up. Button on the bottom should say lift & select. If it doesn't click it once and select it from the menu.

2. That is called a "null" texture here. Search for "null" in your texture browser and apply it like you would any texture.

3. Entity tool. Select ambient_generic from the drop down menu. Then fill out your the path/filename but you do not do a full path. Hammer already knows where your dod folder is due to your setup, so say you wanted a sound in the ambience folder. You would put "ambience/sound.wav" The rest of the fields are for editing how the sound plays.

Thanks. I really appreciate it!

edit : How about a sky? I can't seem to find the sky textures to apply to the outlying brushes.

the texture you look for is called "SKY" and sits in the halflife.wad

the actually sky are tga's that are located in the gfx/env folder.
You can make your own skies if you want: just make 6 tga's (there are enuf tuts around how to do this) and place them in this folder.

In hammer: enter the sky you want in the 'sky'tab from the 'map-properties' menu.

default = 'desert' and imho the most UGLY standard sky you have. so you definitly want to change it.

would you dl a v_model of the garand with just one nut skinned
difrently ?

i dont give a **** whatever you do ..

:)

but its a wast of time

Sorry for all the questions.

1. I selected Lift+Select and it still won't select the face. Does the brush have to be selected when I do this?

2. How do I add rain and/or snow brushes?

Thanks for your patience.:rolleyes:

MAD I tell you.. YOUR ALL MAD!

Well,

to be perfectly honest. Most of your questions are quite obvious.

I suggest you read the mapping FAQ sticky that has been put together over the past months/year(s). It contains some VERY usefull information and links.

:) happy mapping!!

Originally posted by NC17
God man what is with these people and their remakes? cant they be more creative! :p

Oh my God the irony! :rolleyes:

I'm glad to see that a logical debate can be had on these forums over an issue such as this. I visit many HL-Mapping forums, and this is by far the hardest on originality. Not saying that is a bad thing, but there is a love for the whole mapping ordeal here that you might not find elsewhere.

I can only speak for myself when saying this, but if I was the original author of a map that got re-skined by someone else, I would take offense to it. While mapping I make a choice of textures, sounds, etc. that are used in my work and I choose what I want the final product to be. I'm open to texture artists contacting me with higher quality textures or things of this sort, but changing what the author feels is the best layout for his or her map I consider to be a slap in the face. In verges on saying that you do not know what is best for your own work, so I'm going to help enlighten you.

I like so many others are always open to changing things in a map, and if you feel something might work better another way, e-mail the author your suggestion. Nine times out of ten, you will get an answer as to why something is the way it is, and maybe even get your idea into a newer version.

With that said, I realize that I am speaking to the wrong people, but I felt it needed to be said.

1944,
I am glad that you are trying your own ideas out, I am sure that you will find it more rewarding than hex-editing could have ever been. Don't be afraid to ask questions, but always search (Google, as the Forum lost all the good stuff :( )before you post. We mappers get annoyed very easily, must be all the caffeine... :D

Well good luck with the mapping 1944.

I justed wanted to point this out:

You've said that in the MoH:AA commmunity that modifying official maps is encouraged, in the DoD community the reason it's not encouraged is becuase of the personal aspect to modifying someone's work, unlike in the MoH:AA community, the mappers who made the levels in their game are not so much active members of the modding community, in the DoD community, the guys who've made the maps in the game are right here on the forums with the fans/amateur modders.

So you see the difference, and the subsiquent reason that modding existing official maps is not encouraged.

Originally posted by monkeyboy
Well good luck with the mapping 1944.

I justed wanted to point this out:

You've said that in the MoH:AA commmunity that modifying official maps is encouraged, in the DoD community the reason it's not encouraged is becuase of the personal aspect to modifying someone's work, unlike in the MoH:AA community, the mappers who made the levels in their game are not so much active members of the modding community, in the DoD community, the guys who've made the maps in the game are right here on the forums with the fans/amateur modders.

So you see the difference, and the subsiquent reason that modding existing official maps is not encouraged.

A good point, but I want to add "by the community" to your post. Officially though? Knock yourself out.

I also think that this is a great way to learn some things as a mapper (like "if I tweak the lighting like so, just how good (or bad) does it look?" It's also a great way to see how a really good mapper (/me pokes xerent) has created something that works well.

I think it is sad if people have sunken to the level of editing someone elses work, as a mapper, skinner, texture artist, and modeler i think that if something original cant be created then nothing should be created at all

and an issue with waldo remaking caen comes up but that is a completely different situation and waldo had every right to remake caen but when people start remaking and editing maps that the makers are still active members of the mod then thats stupid

saf that isnt the point. its rather a few things.
1. getting to know what a FULL map looks like
2. seeing how things work
3. just being creative with someone else's work. didnt you ever make the hand imprint out of plaster when you were a kid. everyone else in the class did it, so did your older brothers and sisters. its the same type of material, plaster, but you put your mark on it, it makes it different, more/ less interesting.

guys, you are all blowing this WAY out of proportion, and i forget who it was but i never agreed to an EULA, i have NOTHING to do with Activision, for all i care, they could go broke and i wouldnt mind. the thing is that DoD will be around for a long time, and after a while, you think to yourself, hey what ever happened to ..... Hill2? and then someone comes allong and decieds to redo it for the next release or something, are you going to go off and scream about a stupid EULA at him? i dotn think so

just all in all, the guy has Xer's permission, and even Waldo just said its a good way to learn. dont get your panties in a twist, its not going to be the end of the world. and anyways, why should you care, if someone was robbing a liquor store, would you be screaming at him about the law and section 57 article 2 paragraph 5 ( i made taht up) taht its illegal to brandish a fire arm and demand valuables from a place of merchandies? i dont think so, its silly to force your views on other people. if he gets sued then its his problem, not that Activision would even think of spending the money on such a meaningless ordeal. did you know taht all those corp. lawyers have to be paid money, and that filing a case and all the paperwork and time put into it costs a lot of money. there is no reason for a big business to go after a kid because he took out some particle effects and changed the sky in a map for a computer game.

Basically, this is my first shot at any kind of modding for DoD. The main reason I did it was simple. To see if I could do it with previous knowledge I had of .bsp editing. Really didn't think it would be such a hassle around here. One thing that does bother me though. What makes it ok for some folks to remodel a weapon, or addon to an existing model, and I get read the riot act over a few map changes? Wouldn't that be just as much a slap in the face as me changing this map would? Didn't realize that modelers were an exception to this rule.

Now with all this said, I'm still going to make stuff on my own. I won't release any hex-edited files just for the fact that the original mappers did a hell of a job, and nothing I could do would make it any better.

Thanks.

*oh and by the way. im far from being a kid. just to clarify that. lol*

Say what.

I do not have any problem with you editing the maps just to learn and i look at the dod weapons so see what kind of techniques were used so i can learn as well but i dont go and edit the dod skin slightly and then release saying"skin by safeh, original skin by agent_o" i mean i dont even edit the skins but thats and example that its not right for someone to edit someone elses work slightly then give themselves alot more credit than deserved

Safeh

Check your facts.

1. 1944 wasn't explicit in his first post wether he was actually gonna release it or not.
2. He didn't got any permission from xerent or waldo. Permissions came when this thread heated up.

combine 1 with 2 and we got the idea that he was going to release a modified map without the author's consent.

Now, things have straightened out:

1. 1944 has seen that making an original map is much more encouraged then editing existing material. Something we all frown upon in the dod-mappers community.
2. We got onto some legal issues here now DoD has gone retail. Some things will DEFINITLY have to be straightened out on the legal front.
3. Concerning moral of the community itself: decompiling a fully completed map is a great way to learn how to map. Even our mappinggods are encouraging it as a way to get new insights.
Releasing altered material without the authors consent however, is pretty much subject to critics and flames.

a last observation: the reason why this thread is so heated is because the last couple of days lots of 'altered maps' and 'remakes' have popped up. Apparently it took some time to realise the impact of this evolution. That's why we got such reactions here.

That's about what wraps this thread up me thinks.... :)