When you fall "in love" with your work, you become attached to it. You find yourself having trouble making even the simplest of decisions because everything is "too important" to let go of. You are likely to cling to a bad idea even if scrapping it and starting over would be easier. You begin to accept less than your best and it results in lazy work.
Once attached to your map you start treating it as an extension of yourself. In your mind, your map IS you and therefore when someone criticizes your map they are criticizing you. It is impossible to maintain this mindset and still be objective. This can cause you to be defensive of your map and hostile towards advice. Separate who you are from what you do. Loving your work or being passionate about what you do is very different from falling "in love" with your work.
It sounds like many of you are forgetting a crucial part of any design process:
DON'T FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR WORK!
When someone says your map sucks, it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. The best feedback you can get will always "feel" destructive if you become attached to your work.
If your map really does suck, wouldn't you want people to let you know so you can fix it? You can't make something better by only listing the good things about it. If a tester gave you a list of things they liked, you will undoubtedly want to ask, "but what do you think needs improvement?" That was the entire point of them testing your map in the first place: finding ways to improve it.
While it would be convenient if people dressed up their criticism in love and care, it's a simple fact that most people aren't going to do that. I actually prefer it this way. If I asked you to look at my work and you're beating around the bush I'm probably not going to ask you again in the future. I need you to be blunt about what you don't like. Worrying about my feelings wastes time and often prevents me from being able to fix problems. If I asked for your opinion, I should be prepared for any criticism that follows. I don't have to act on it, but hearing why you feel that way is important. This process helps me understand how others perceive my work and in turn will undoubtedly improve it.
By repeating this over and over again you iterate through many versions until you're satisfied. It is very rare to get something right the first time. This is true for games, music, food, sports. . . anything really. Don't treat your map as an extension of you. You don't suddenly consider your favorite band an utter failure when they release a song you don't like. You still enjoy their music, just not that particular song.
At the same time, remember that we are often equally critical of others. How often do you see "Omg this game sucks, the [ANYTHING] is broken" on a YouTube trailer or game forum? You can't expect testers to "be gentle" with you if you're not willing to do the same with gaming companies.
Considering he last logged on in early november last year and your post was over a year since the last one, I doubt it.
That's a fairly unhelpful post.
While it would take some time, anyone could learn how to do this, repeat the process and then create a video of the result. He wasn't asking the OP to make the video, merely anyone with the time and tools to do so.
Also, there really isn't a reason to log in if you don't post or ignore PMs. I see lots of members with <20 posts. So if he hasn't posted in a while it will lead you to believe he hasn't been here in a while.
I have secretly been tracking down the geographic location for every IP to have ever connected to mapster. I shall be stealing all your presents like the sneaky ninja I often describe myself as in my fantasies.
Please leave your windows open and your back doors unlocked so that I don't have to work too hard to ninja all teh presents!
It's a mistake to assume that words are meaningless and people are too sensitive to them. Words have two forms of communication: denotative and connotative. You are assuming that everyone uses words in the same way that you do which is wrong. While the denotative (literal) definition of a word might support your claims that they are overreacting, the connotative (figurative/implied) meanings of a word are where most issues lie.
The attitude you project when saying these words are what offend people more than the language itself. Not surprisingly, certain words are commonly associated with a particular attitude. So while you might not find what you say offensive, there are people who take what you say to mean something very different given that the way they typically encounter such language IS offensive.
In Australia, the connotations for most of your words have been dampened for whatever reason. To you, the words "seem" okay, but that doesn't mean that everyone in Australia has the same mentality or that if everyone else in the world acted like Australia the same would happen. In fact, it's far more likely that every other possibility would happen BEFORE repeating Australia's current situation. This is because of the cultures unique to each region and the connotations that come with them.
A fairly common example is when you're in school learning a different language. Using hand gestures when giving a speech is often discouraged due to the fact that you might accidentally use a gesture that is offensive to native speakers of that language. This is shown in many situations where tourists travel to another country and come back with awkward stories of how they didn't realize they were being incredibly rude.
America probably has the biggest problem with this given that most countries consider us to be egotistical and spoiled. If we applied your logic, we'd conclude that it is actually every other country in the world that is at fault and Americans shouldn't care if we offend anyone. It seems unreasonable to suggest that everyone else in the world is to blame and not America, no?
Furthermore, it is lazy to forfeit all responsibility for your actions by blaming everyone around you for being offended. They don't choose what actions you take, so it is impossible to blame them for the decisions you make. It is also incredibly selfish to assume that the way you want to live is the only way a person should live. The form of censorship you are complaining about is used primarily as a way to preserve a neutral social environment such as to offend the least amount of people. This is VERY important in a situation where people can't control who they interact with. It allows people to feel comfortable in situations that they can't directly control. If customers can't rely on an environment they feel safe in, they will take their business elsewhere.
If someone is being blatantly offensive to you, one of three things have happened:
1) You control the environment (your home/business) and you can ask the individual to stop or leave.
2) Neither of you control the environment and you can ask them to stop or report them to the moderator (store manager, site admin, home owner etc).
3) They control the environment and you must tolerate the behavior or leave.
It is a widely accepted practice that you can choose how you want to live in those places you maintain control of. Likewise, it is also expected that those who own a public place maintain a neutral environment. Battle.net is one such place. You don't own it thus it is foolish to believe that you can act in whatever manner you wish and expect everyone to "deal with it or grow up."
You are showing that you don't respect anyone enough to support the environment they wish to create for themselves. That IS offensive and I fully support you or anyone being suspended/banned for it. If you spoke like this in my home I'd kick you out of it. Likewise I'd expect that if I attempted to dictate the way you speak in YOUR home you'd do the same.
What this issue boils down to is respect. Either you respect others enough to change the way you act so that they feel comfortable around you or you don't. Blaming others for a free pass to act as you please wherever you go is childish.
lol it's actually a bit worse than you guys think. There are 3 bills that are being forced through government that will have a negative impact on the internet as a whole.
Allows the Department of Justice to circumvent the legal system by censoring a website from search engines, shutting down their domain name and cutting all revenue streams without informing the defendant. This can be done without your knowledge meaning you lose your primary means of defense before having the chance to defend your case in court. Anyone could be shut down through "guilty until proven innocent" just by suggesting that their website is "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill does a poor job of specifying what that means and would allow for a very broad range of targets.
Makes copyright infringement a federal crime with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. This bill further widens the scope of targets by making any source of illegal streaming (all social networks, all video uploading sites, all streaming sites, all P2P sites etc) count towards a "ten strikes" program. This can be skipped if the total economic value of your "infringing content" exceeds $2,500 to the copyright holder or you.
Thus if the copyright owner was selling the content for $10 but you put it in a video that makes $2,500 from advertisements (this is incredibly common with popular YouTube channels), you skip all ten strikes. By the same token, if they sold the content for millions while you made nothing, you still skip all ten strikes. This value counts total revenue and not profit after expenses making it relatively easy for a copyright owner to infer hypothetical losses that would fast track you to jail.
Combines the two bills from the Senate into an even broader bill from the House of Representatives. As with the above, infringement becomes a felony with up to 5 years in prison. Likewise, the Department of Justice can shut down and censor websites without their knowledge. The main difference is that the requirement for this action is described as having "only limited purpose or use other than infringement." If the copyright owner decides that your website is not useful (to them) outside of "potential" copyright infringement they can shut you down. This is made worse by overriding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and placing all responsibility on site owners.
As it stands now, if a website is not directly aware of infringing content they are immune so long as they cooperative with the copyright owner to remove the content. By good faith a website can continue to function. This bill would change this by making the site owner liable for ALL infringement regardless of whether or not they were aware of it. This will force websites to censor themselves as a means to prevent being shut down by the odd rogue user that breaks the rules. Even then they could still be shut down if the copyright owner is not satisfied. Given the painful lack of specific guidelines for avoiding this situation, the mere existence of the bill would punish site owners by deterring anything that could be misconstrued as infringement.
As it stands, if any of these pass, censorship will gain a foothold in America. While some of the motives behind these bills make sense (for the politicians), this is being horribly obscured by the more obvious fact that they are being bought by the businesses that want to use these new "toys" to decimate their opponents. Many businesses that support these bills have already begun labeling Google, Costco, every blogging site ever and so forth as "rogue sites" showing that they fully intend to abuse them.
Considering the creations of BorgDragon, myself and Kueken531, an ultralisk with 6 leviathan like tentacles seems rather tame in hindsight.
That's sounds a little bitter, eh? Especially when you consider that my tutorial(s) on attachments laid the foundation for your "creations."
The saying "I was making attachments when you were still learning how the editor worked" seems appropriate.
The point of this tutorial was never to show off what I can do, but to show others how to create what they'd been wanting to since Blizzard's reveal.
@Everyone else
I'm almost done with the revamp of this tutorial. It will address some of the problems many of you are having as well as better answer questions that keep coming up despite me answering them multiple times. Hopefully it will be easier to follow and make more sense :)
To those asking about Mass Effect/The Elder Scrolls:
Mass Effect is a better game than Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim on its own.
What makes TES Series better than Mass Effect is the modding capabilities. Usually the game feels kinda empty and buggy until you mod it. One of the first mods I got for Morrowind/Oblivion was the unofficial bug patch. There's always 1-2 of them. After that, I end up with upwards of 100 mods. These mods completely change the way the game works and, usually, make it the most amazing game you have ever played. This is because everything you wanted in the game can be added while anything you DON'T want can be removed.
50% of you would be willing to pay $5 for a model of a hat or a cool skin for your favorite hero in Sockem Boppem Action Fighters 2. Even more of you are willing to pay that (and more) each week for your favorite pop/coffee/alcoholic beverages. To think that many of you scoff at paying money for games when you happily empty your wallets for trivial junk is mind boggling.
Just think of how much you spend on movie theaters, restaurants and random other social events where you pay money to do something you don't really "need" to do.
And yet many of you want all free games all the time. . .
0
When you fall "in love" with your work, you become attached to it. You find yourself having trouble making even the simplest of decisions because everything is "too important" to let go of. You are likely to cling to a bad idea even if scrapping it and starting over would be easier. You begin to accept less than your best and it results in lazy work.
Once attached to your map you start treating it as an extension of yourself. In your mind, your map IS you and therefore when someone criticizes your map they are criticizing you. It is impossible to maintain this mindset and still be objective. This can cause you to be defensive of your map and hostile towards advice. Separate who you are from what you do. Loving your work or being passionate about what you do is very different from falling "in love" with your work.
0
It sounds like many of you are forgetting a crucial part of any design process:
DON'T FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR WORK!
When someone says your map sucks, it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. The best feedback you can get will always "feel" destructive if you become attached to your work.
If your map really does suck, wouldn't you want people to let you know so you can fix it? You can't make something better by only listing the good things about it. If a tester gave you a list of things they liked, you will undoubtedly want to ask, "but what do you think needs improvement?" That was the entire point of them testing your map in the first place: finding ways to improve it.
While it would be convenient if people dressed up their criticism in love and care, it's a simple fact that most people aren't going to do that. I actually prefer it this way. If I asked you to look at my work and you're beating around the bush I'm probably not going to ask you again in the future. I need you to be blunt about what you don't like. Worrying about my feelings wastes time and often prevents me from being able to fix problems. If I asked for your opinion, I should be prepared for any criticism that follows. I don't have to act on it, but hearing why you feel that way is important. This process helps me understand how others perceive my work and in turn will undoubtedly improve it.
By repeating this over and over again you iterate through many versions until you're satisfied. It is very rare to get something right the first time. This is true for games, music, food, sports. . . anything really. Don't treat your map as an extension of you. You don't suddenly consider your favorite band an utter failure when they release a song you don't like. You still enjoy their music, just not that particular song.
At the same time, remember that we are often equally critical of others. How often do you see "Omg this game sucks, the [ANYTHING] is broken" on a YouTube trailer or game forum? You can't expect testers to "be gentle" with you if you're not willing to do the same with gaming companies.
0
That's a fairly unhelpful post.
While it would take some time, anyone could learn how to do this, repeat the process and then create a video of the result. He wasn't asking the OP to make the video, merely anyone with the time and tools to do so.
Also, there really isn't a reason to log in if you don't post or ignore PMs. I see lots of members with <20 posts. So if he hasn't posted in a while it will lead you to believe he hasn't been here in a while.
0
Yeah, as long as the bank/map files are stored locally they can (and likely will) be "hacked."
0
I have secretly been tracking down the geographic location for every IP to have ever connected to mapster. I shall be stealing all your presents like the sneaky ninja I often describe myself as in my fantasies.
Please leave your windows open and your back doors unlocked so that I don't have to work too hard to ninja all teh presents!
0
I ate all teh views
0
It's a mistake to assume that words are meaningless and people are too sensitive to them. Words have two forms of communication: denotative and connotative. You are assuming that everyone uses words in the same way that you do which is wrong. While the denotative (literal) definition of a word might support your claims that they are overreacting, the connotative (figurative/implied) meanings of a word are where most issues lie.
The attitude you project when saying these words are what offend people more than the language itself. Not surprisingly, certain words are commonly associated with a particular attitude. So while you might not find what you say offensive, there are people who take what you say to mean something very different given that the way they typically encounter such language IS offensive.
In Australia, the connotations for most of your words have been dampened for whatever reason. To you, the words "seem" okay, but that doesn't mean that everyone in Australia has the same mentality or that if everyone else in the world acted like Australia the same would happen. In fact, it's far more likely that every other possibility would happen BEFORE repeating Australia's current situation. This is because of the cultures unique to each region and the connotations that come with them.
A fairly common example is when you're in school learning a different language. Using hand gestures when giving a speech is often discouraged due to the fact that you might accidentally use a gesture that is offensive to native speakers of that language. This is shown in many situations where tourists travel to another country and come back with awkward stories of how they didn't realize they were being incredibly rude.
America probably has the biggest problem with this given that most countries consider us to be egotistical and spoiled. If we applied your logic, we'd conclude that it is actually every other country in the world that is at fault and Americans shouldn't care if we offend anyone. It seems unreasonable to suggest that everyone else in the world is to blame and not America, no?
Furthermore, it is lazy to forfeit all responsibility for your actions by blaming everyone around you for being offended. They don't choose what actions you take, so it is impossible to blame them for the decisions you make. It is also incredibly selfish to assume that the way you want to live is the only way a person should live. The form of censorship you are complaining about is used primarily as a way to preserve a neutral social environment such as to offend the least amount of people. This is VERY important in a situation where people can't control who they interact with. It allows people to feel comfortable in situations that they can't directly control. If customers can't rely on an environment they feel safe in, they will take their business elsewhere.
If someone is being blatantly offensive to you, one of three things have happened:
1) You control the environment (your home/business) and you can ask the individual to stop or leave.
2) Neither of you control the environment and you can ask them to stop or report them to the moderator (store manager, site admin, home owner etc).
3) They control the environment and you must tolerate the behavior or leave.
It is a widely accepted practice that you can choose how you want to live in those places you maintain control of. Likewise, it is also expected that those who own a public place maintain a neutral environment. Battle.net is one such place. You don't own it thus it is foolish to believe that you can act in whatever manner you wish and expect everyone to "deal with it or grow up."
You are showing that you don't respect anyone enough to support the environment they wish to create for themselves. That IS offensive and I fully support you or anyone being suspended/banned for it. If you spoke like this in my home I'd kick you out of it. Likewise I'd expect that if I attempted to dictate the way you speak in YOUR home you'd do the same.
What this issue boils down to is respect. Either you respect others enough to change the way you act so that they feel comfortable around you or you don't. Blaming others for a free pass to act as you please wherever you go is childish.
0
lol it's actually a bit worse than you guys think. There are 3 bills that are being forced through government that will have a negative impact on the internet as a whole.
S.968: PROTECT IP Act
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/show
Allows the Department of Justice to circumvent the legal system by censoring a website from search engines, shutting down their domain name and cutting all revenue streams without informing the defendant. This can be done without your knowledge meaning you lose your primary means of defense before having the chance to defend your case in court. Anyone could be shut down through "guilty until proven innocent" just by suggesting that their website is "dedicated to infringing activities." The bill does a poor job of specifying what that means and would allow for a very broad range of targets.
S.978: Commercial Felony Streaming Act
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show
Makes copyright infringement a federal crime with a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. This bill further widens the scope of targets by making any source of illegal streaming (all social networks, all video uploading sites, all streaming sites, all P2P sites etc) count towards a "ten strikes" program. This can be skipped if the total economic value of your "infringing content" exceeds $2,500 to the copyright holder or you.
Thus if the copyright owner was selling the content for $10 but you put it in a video that makes $2,500 from advertisements (this is incredibly common with popular YouTube channels), you skip all ten strikes. By the same token, if they sold the content for millions while you made nothing, you still skip all ten strikes. This value counts total revenue and not profit after expenses making it relatively easy for a copyright owner to infer hypothetical losses that would fast track you to jail.
H.R.3261: Stop Online Piracy Act
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show
Combines the two bills from the Senate into an even broader bill from the House of Representatives. As with the above, infringement becomes a felony with up to 5 years in prison. Likewise, the Department of Justice can shut down and censor websites without their knowledge. The main difference is that the requirement for this action is described as having "only limited purpose or use other than infringement." If the copyright owner decides that your website is not useful (to them) outside of "potential" copyright infringement they can shut you down. This is made worse by overriding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and placing all responsibility on site owners.
As it stands now, if a website is not directly aware of infringing content they are immune so long as they cooperative with the copyright owner to remove the content. By good faith a website can continue to function. This bill would change this by making the site owner liable for ALL infringement regardless of whether or not they were aware of it. This will force websites to censor themselves as a means to prevent being shut down by the odd rogue user that breaks the rules. Even then they could still be shut down if the copyright owner is not satisfied. Given the painful lack of specific guidelines for avoiding this situation, the mere existence of the bill would punish site owners by deterring anything that could be misconstrued as infringement.
As it stands, if any of these pass, censorship will gain a foothold in America. While some of the motives behind these bills make sense (for the politicians), this is being horribly obscured by the more obvious fact that they are being bought by the businesses that want to use these new "toys" to decimate their opponents. Many businesses that support these bills have already begun labeling Google, Costco, every blogging site ever and so forth as "rogue sites" showing that they fully intend to abuse them.
0
Maknyuzz. . . if you force me to lock this thread and jeopardize my chance to steal one of progammer's beta passes. . .
I
WILL
END
YOU
Now GTFO outta dis thread and learn you some mannuhs!
Seriously. . .
Right now. . .
0
I HAV TAKED ME RANDSOM AND DEMAND PAYMENT OF ONE DOTA TOO BETA KEY!!!!!!
IF U DONT GIEF ME A KEY RITE NAOW I WILL HANG ME AND SHOOT ME AND STAB ME AND POSON ME!!!!!
U HAV BEN WARN!!!!!!!!
. . .
. . .
no seriously. . . I will massacre myself in a most gruesome fashion. . . gimme gimme gimme!
0
Yes, you simply need to add multiple beam chains to one of the Sets in the current chain.
Right now it's Beam > Set > Beam > etc.
You would change it to Beam > Set > 2 Beams > 2 Sets > 2 (4 if you want it to double each time) Beams > etc.
0
That's sounds a little bitter, eh? Especially when you consider that my tutorial(s) on attachments laid the foundation for your "creations."
The saying "I was making attachments when you were still learning how the editor worked" seems appropriate.
The point of this tutorial was never to show off what I can do, but to show others how to create what they'd been wanting to since Blizzard's reveal.
@Everyone else
I'm almost done with the revamp of this tutorial. It will address some of the problems many of you are having as well as better answer questions that keep coming up despite me answering them multiple times. Hopefully it will be easier to follow and make more sense :)
0
To those asking about Mass Effect/The Elder Scrolls:
Mass Effect is a better game than Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim on its own.
What makes TES Series better than Mass Effect is the modding capabilities. Usually the game feels kinda empty and buggy until you mod it. One of the first mods I got for Morrowind/Oblivion was the unofficial bug patch. There's always 1-2 of them. After that, I end up with upwards of 100 mods. These mods completely change the way the game works and, usually, make it the most amazing game you have ever played. This is because everything you wanted in the game can be added while anything you DON'T want can be removed.
Consoles: Mass Effect > The Elder Scrolls
PC: The Elder Scrolls > Mass Effect
0
I agree. This doesn't make sense to advertise on SC2Mapster when they didn't bother to do the same when SC2 was coming out.
0
I think this entire argument is moot.
50% of you would be willing to pay $5 for a model of a hat or a cool skin for your favorite hero in Sockem Boppem Action Fighters 2. Even more of you are willing to pay that (and more) each week for your favorite pop/coffee/alcoholic beverages. To think that many of you scoff at paying money for games when you happily empty your wallets for trivial junk is mind boggling.
Just think of how much you spend on movie theaters, restaurants and random other social events where you pay money to do something you don't really "need" to do.
And yet many of you want all free games all the time. . .
A bit selfish, no?