DualGap Adaptive needs to be given to the FAF community!
-
@nflanders said in DualGap Adaptive needs to be given to the FAF community!:
Ok, I think there are still developers in FAF who are ready to take on the support of the map on which 80% of the games in FAF are played.
You don't need a developer, you need someone who can make and reason about maps.
I also don't think the number is 80%, I'd like to see your data on that
. As an example, if you combine Gap of Rohan and Astro Crater than you roughly have the same number of games as DualGap. Let alone that we do not track how often GPG maps are played because they're not in the vault (Seton's Clutch).But above all - it's almost impossible to make improvements at this point. There's no average consensus, there's a wide range of opinions and any change is considered good by one half and bad by the other half of the community.
-
@nflanders Why do you want changes?
-
@nflanders said in DualGap Adaptive needs to be given to the FAF community!:
I am not suggesting that the map be taken away from the author.
That's exactly what you are suggesting though. Your title is literally "DualGap Adaptive needs to be given to the FAF community".
In any case, this cannot be done; the map was not published under a permissive license, and as such remains the original owner's. If you want this map to see future development, contact the original owner and have them give permission for future changes.
This is a good example of why maps, ideally, should be licensed under a permissive license. I've published all of mine under a Creative commons license, and already other variants of some of the maps have been developed (one or two 'survival' versions, for example).
Now, if you're looking for someone to make you a custom variant of Gap, you can send me a PM in discord. While I won't make a version of that map in my free time, as I don't quite like the playstyle of those kind of maps, I have been thinking about starting to do commissions. And making a custom Gap map for a commission might be interesting enough.
-
It is pretty ironic that a community based around violating copyright laws to keep their favorite game alive after the developers stopped supporting it is now so concerned about not violating the previously non-existent copyright privileges given to mappers and modders (who are also mostly not supporting their creations).
-
As I understand it, the FAF project is more in line with modding the original game (an activity explicitly endorsed by the creators of SupCom) than downright violating copyright laws. I'll admit to not being an export on the topic however.
-
@thomashiatt said in DualGap Adaptive needs to be given to the FAF community!:
It is pretty ironic that a community based around violating copyright laws to keep their favorite game alive after the developers stopped supporting it is now so concerned about not violating the previously non-existent copyright privileges given to mappers and modders (who are also mostly not supporting their creations).
There's nothing ironic about it.
At FAForever we created an environment where you have some form of guarantee that when you spent hours (or days) of your time to create an experience (whether that is a map or a mod) that you can be relatively certain of it that once you distribute it (upload to the vault) that people can't just take it and redistribute a (thousand) derivative(s).
Contributors left because their work was used and/or taken without their permission. I recall a map author to even be extremely frustrated because the matchmaker team intentionally used an old version of a map.
But I personally do think that all content for FAForever should be created with a permissive license. It allows the content to last longer and be maintained when you're gone. Whether that is the MIT license for code or a Creative Commons license such as CC BY-SA-NC.
-
Sorry Flenders, but it seems like we are enemies. You want ''more'' dualgap games,
Whereas I, want ''less''
gg
-
It would make sense that all content uploaded to FAF is default a Creative Commons, unless specified by the author it is not. And even then, copyright terms should expire, after a year or so after development has stopped.
-
That's not how law works. We can demand this for new uploads (whether people accepts that is a different question), but you cannot change the license retroactive without the authors consent.
Actually our backend supports selecting the license to creative commons but it was never added to the client...
-
That appears to be a decent good-first-issue for this topic:
-
J Jip referenced this topic on
