HOW-TO Prepare and Copy-protect your mission

Dear Mission-designer.

I've created a thread over at Blackshark.me explaining how you can copy-protect your mission files from tampering.

Please feel free to express your opinions over at blackshark.me

The topic covers 3 HOW-To's, spread across the post:

HOW-TO hide all units

HOW-TO copy protect your mission

HOW-TO associate WinRar with .MIZ and .MIZ.TRK

Clicky Linky:

HOW-TO Prepare and Copy-protect your mission

Updated it a bit, if you're just read it - you'll find a couple of more images illustrating the changes.

Couldn't an interested person reverse this process to un-protect the mission?

Interesting smart thing but I ask myself if the community, as a whole, will benefit in any way from non-editable missions. Wouldn't be more efficient, from the point of view of learn how to use the editor and/or make better versions of others missions, to left them open?

Thank you for the tutorial!

This is a very interesting thing.

... but my question is: WHY DON'T ED HAVE IMPLEMENTED A PW SAVETY LIKE IN LOCKON?! I'll never understand this...

... but my question is: WHY DON'T ED HAVE IMPLEMENTED A PW SAVETY LIKE IN LOCKON?! I'll never understand this...

The PW protection in LockOn does nothing to protect the mission at all.......it is simply overwritten by assigning one's own password and then immediately declassifying again with the newly assigned password. As such the original Mission-Designer's password and hence the 'protection' is irrelevant and useless.

Interesting smart thing but I ask myself if the community, as a whole, will benefit in any way from non-editable missions. Wouldn't be more efficient, from the point of view of learn how to use the editor and/or make better versions of others missions, to left them open?

With the sheer amount of work that Mission-Building entails with the limited resources of the current ME, it stands to reason that the authors thereof would want to protect the Fruits of their Labour :)

Interesting smart thing but I ask myself if the community, as a whole, will benefit in any way from non-editable missions. Wouldn't be more efficient, from the point of view of learn how to use the editor and/or make better versions of others missions, to left them open?

Yes, the mission designer now has the choice to do that - or not. It's just that, it's a choice now - previously you had no choice.

I have seen some people who wish to have control over the release because they have put so much work into it.

Ref:

http://www.159thgar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=979

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=725581&postcount=17

Couldn't an interested person reverse this process to un-protect the mission?

And you would end up with a totally new mission - created by the person who decided to reposition everything. Which is fine. You'd be very patient if you try to place and reposition all the units into the exact location.

Probably impossible.

With the sheer amount of work that Mission-Building entails with the limited resources of the current ME, it stands to reason that the authors thereof would want to protect the Fruits of their Labour :)

To be honest here, I tend to gather most missions up, and edit text to english so clients know what the mission objectives and trigger messages are saying. I also edit the mission for ramp start if its not already done. With single play missions, if I think they are wothy I'll edit them for 4 slot multiplay as many of them are great trainers with four slots. Other than that my missions are as offered by the community. I know this is common practice as when my server is live I get many connects that simply join and exit after a minute or so, and I know they are just mission hunters that are looking for content, either to promote there own server, or because the ping to mine from Europe is prohibitive. I dont see any problem with this, as I think the more servers the better for this game.

Guilty as charged if this is a crime. The sheer lack of content for multiplay brought about by ED's decision not to deploy a dynamic campaign engine leaves this game with a constent hunger for new content.

If it wasnt for the great work a few of you guys do in building missions I'd say this game would be dead in water inside twelve months.

If there is something wrong with this please comment :joystick:

Kurtz, *I* see nothing wrong with your intention there :)

I think at least some people wanted to have the oppurtunity to prevent people from going around gathering mission for their personal servers.

And in som cases the ones who adjust and tune the mission for a couple of hours, while the original author may have spent weeks on the mission - and not getting any credits for doing so.

Which enables them to controlling the changes / request through a forum is a good wethod for them to measure the success and interest of their mission.

Nothing wrong with *their* intention either, is it? :)

Will not download any of the missions with data destroyed within mission editor.

What I don't understand is what kind of credit are the mission author expecting in return?

I think what should be important is to enforce and educate, about saying thanks and referencing authors of the original mission in the briefings (for copies or derivated missions).

Limiting the editable propierties of the mission will clearly just limit the success of it.

This is very wrong. This is not capitalist economy, we're just sharing for the pure sake of enjoying. I would perfectly understand it if you were to sell missions for real money, but you're not.

 

I can't see any profit for the creator. It's like copyright but without any tangible return. I mean, I can't really see why anybody would want to protect such a thing. You say credit for the author, but this is done saying thanks in the forums and referencing the mission (original author "Panzertard" in the briefing for a derived mission, for example). Noone takes any credit for flying a mission in a predesigned server. Succes is what you perhaps need, and success comes by popularity. This method won't bring success, in fact the contrary.

 

You say chose, but chose is not always good: you kill A and keep the money or you share the money with him, what would you do? many people would kill A!! XD Enforcing open editable missions should me a must. Think in free/open source software for example.

 

I like to translate missions to spanish, for example. Now I can't, this means potentially less people would fly them. Or if I see a mistake in a trigger I can't correct it if you left for a trip or for another community of sims.

 

At the end, the one who looses are players. Bear this in mind.

And turn it into a Dictatorship, enforcing the principle of sharing on another.......I think not ;)

What this does in afford the opportunity to 'protect' the Days and Weeks (literally) of work that goes into these missions. Should you wish to share - then so be it. On the other hand, should you wish to exercise some type of control on your Intellectual property, then again, you should be afforded the opportunity to do so. Bottom Line - You should be able to have the Choice to do so, or not!

Where before Mission Designers did not have such a choice - they do so now, and Rightfully so!

The Right to Exercise said choice and the said implications of exercising said choice is a matter for another debate in it's entirety, and one which I am not sure has a place to be discussed here. I am however certain that the mere granting of a way to exercise some type of control over one's work cannot be perceived as anything more than a welcome addition to an editor lacking..........IMHO of course :)

"protect the days and weeks of work" for what? because you can?

Really, it's wrong in the context we are discussing (if what you want is just success)

And we have not started talking about exploit yet, but it clearly can be described as an exploit (even if there is no intention by the author). ED did an open and editable mission file because they chosen to, I don't think they want it now to be closed format.

PD: Viper, I deleted the long post and condensed the idea in just three phrases just above.

What I don't understand is what kind of credit are the mission author expecting in return?

Some good questions and points, Distiler. :)

IMHO; The mission creator probably want to see some fruits from his labor - thats a very common goal - to see how much the community loves the mission.

Restricting it by this "copy protection" may have the following effect:

- Some will get angry because they wont be able to read/see the source.

- Others will give productive and constructive feedback to the author, so *he* (the author) can learn how to improve the mission.

- Some people may step (on the forums) up as co-authers, acknowledged by the original author, instead changing the missions themselves and releasing it for their own server only.

Not restricting the mission also may result in:

- People improving the mission themselves

- More people performing translation, improved briefings.

- More widespread usage on more servers.

- Less feedback to the original author

- Less "love" in the said "publication forum threads".

I do understand that some really want to restrict it - it's their choice.

Another reason for protecting the mission may be that it is WIP - not a full release yet, hence one would want to release it until it's ocmplete.

I think what should be important is to enforce and educate, about saying thanks and referencing authors of the original mission in the briefings (for copies or derivated missions).

 

Limiting the editable propierties of the mission will clearly just limit the success of it.

Agree to both points there actually :)

But it should still be the authors choice :)

For the sake of argument - extend this discussion to Campaigns. You design a campaign and the attendant work that is involved. The Campaign is disseminated via the Community and the next chapter in the Saga has 'your' Campaign submitted to the ED Campaign Creation Competition, with the attendant Prize-Money and Software at stake.

Bottom-Line: 'Your' campaign walks away with the Prize-Money and Software.........You - well, job well done I suppose. You're still outta the Cash and Merchandise ;)

Above just one example.......you can see where this can go, can't you :)

Viper that's a good one heh, but it's just one exception that shouldn't be converted into rule because the bad effects will do more harm than good. In any way, you still can send your original file to ED and maybe it will show your is older so is the original.

At the end, it should be ED choice, not mission author, if the mission is in an open and editable format or not. Even if in this context I don't endorse it and I find counter productive (profit is for the markets), author may chose to have some right over the intelectual propierty, but ED has the word on the container, the file, how it interacts with the editor, etc.

That's actually easy to reverse if you know a thing or two ... it would take a couple days to a week of programming in spare time.

That's actually easy to reverse if you know a thing or two ... it would take a couple days to a week of programming in spare time.

Correct :)

Should be a legit way to "lock" an author reference (like a signature about the original mission) in the briefing and I think it would be a better idea than locking the whole mission.

In fact the mission lock method posted, do it protect the briefing? or just the mission items? because I think the important part is the first one. I always put something like "translated from the original mission named XXXXX by YYYYY", and I think that's correct for the original author.

Viper that's a good one heh, but it's just one exception that can be converted into rule because the bad effects will do more harm than good.......

And that's the Point: There has to be a mechanism in place to prevent just such an 'exeption' or scenario. As said - that is just one possible example of which there can no doubt countless more :)

What we have here is two opposing views being discussed from the far corners of the scenario. In reality there can no doubt exist a 'Happy Medium', especially in a Close-Knit Community such as ourselves.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a Mission-Designer will not hesitate at all to provide you with the 'unprotected' version of the Mission for the purposes of editing as per your post from English to Spanish, at your request thereto. Not to do so will no doubt bring about it's own set of consequences in a community such as ours, but that is another matter in it's entirety ;)

As said, No-One is going to withhold consent unreasonably for such purposes.....All that is required is the 'Asking' therefore, and that is what the protection offers the Mission-Designer: The knowledge that his Mission is worthy of attention - After all, they say that Imitation is the sincerest form of Flattery :)

Again - The Mission will always be shared: What this does is it ensures that the Original Designer actually has the decency bestowed upon him to be asked.......makes a difference :thumbup:

Guys, there exist ways of doing all this, but they're actually fairly complex and probably not withing ED's best interests to implement at this time.

~S~ all,

Interesting ideas on both sides of the fence here. I can understand the original author of a mission wanting to keep his product "pure" if it is in fact a well designed scenario. But what if its a good concept or story behind the mission but has WAY to many enemy SAM's within range of your takeoff, so as soon as you launch you start getting warning messages? Or even worse, you find the ultimate single player mission and want to edit it so you can fly it with your squad mates. No can do if its locked.

I have dozens of missions for ArmA that are locked and worthless for just this reason. I would hate to think the same thing would be happening to Black Shark. Rather than "force" people to give cud-o's in appreciation threads, I more suspect people would just not download the mission to try out to begin with.

I can't remember the last time I played an actual single player mission. But we, the War Hawks do fly in multi-player several times a week in co-op missions where teamwork wins the day. Several of those missions were originally designed as single player that I or other squad members have changed to add multi-player capability.

I might be stupid ofcourse, but if you see an locked mission you would think needs editing to get available in multiplayer or singleplayer.

Why not contact the author? Aint that hard is it.

Also, if you would have an idea on how long it takes for certain scenarious to be completed i personally cant stand the idea just anyone could run off whit it.

(for example panzertards mission is already weeks in development and he's still tuning it, yet just about anyone would be able to "adjust" some things and run away whit his work in just a few minutes.)

If anyone made an mission he can (should if ya ask me) lock it.

Make sure there is some contact info that comes whit the mission so people can give the author there ideas and suggestions, then its up to the author to decide what to do whit it.

I totally agree with the choice here to protect your work.

I spent the best part of 2 months designing, tweaking, testing and re-tweaking the 10 single player missions and converting them to multiplayer missions for the SIM-MOD A-10. I would very much have liked to protect these missions as I used them for a basis of a more detailed campaign that I began work on, before DCS was released of course.

So my choice as an author is yes, let me protect them!