VtM-Bloodlines - Unofficial Patch v6.3

A new month and we have a new patch available for Vampire: Bloodlines bringing it to version 6.3.

+ Added Mitnick quest for library card and changed Gary's quest items.
+ Increased Dragon's Breath damage and created a separate round type.
+ Placed a katana into Fu Syndicate and a girl into VV's private pool.
+ Added humanity point and lines for giving Lily's items back to her.
+ Swapped crossbows in temple basement with Steyr AUGs like in ending.
+ Removed humanity loss for killing victims at the Hallowbrook hotel.
+ Added explosion and boss flag for the Venture Tower Dominated guard.
Fixed missing Dima and Russians issues and cop and Bruno subtitles.
Improved Gargoyle logs and delayed phone dialogues to fit animation.
Fixed edicts errors generated by use of Auspex, thanks to SunBlade.
Exchanged Venture Tower guard models and armed them with Steyr AUGs.
Fixed Arthur/Knox issue and Kiki's standing hair, thanks to MooCHa.
Corrected Beckett bonus dialogue and two missing Ocean House sounds.
Removed three more plus items to improve basic patch compatibility.

More information.

To anyone with experience on the patch,can I install it on 6.2?

Does it seem odd to anyone else that he doesn't understanding how versioning works?

Unless you've completely overhauled the program, the patch after 1.9 should be 1.10. That thought takes me back to the WoW forums and the masses of people claiming that 2.0 would come after 1.9, some even so sure of themselves that they would lash out and call people morons for suggesting that 1.10 would follow 1.9, and that 2.0 would only come when the expansion came out. It's not a decimal point. It's a dot.

Originally Posted by Badesumofu
Does it seem odd to anyone else that he doesn't understanding how versioning works?

Unless you've completely overhauled the program, the patch after 1.9 should be 1.10. That thought takes me back to the WoW forums and the masses of people claiming that 2.0 would come after 1.9, some even so sure of themselves that they would lash out and call people morons for suggesting that 1.10 would follow 1.9, and that 2.0 would only come when the expansion came out. It's not a decimal point. It's a dot.

I'd never call anyone a "moron" for not being able to count but I think you are wrong, too . It should always be like this…

1.09 —-> 1.10
1.9 —-> 2.0

Originally Posted by Badesumofu
Does it seem odd to anyone else that he doesn't understanding how versioning works?

Unless you've completely overhauled the program, the patch after 1.9 should be 1.10. That thought takes me back to the WoW forums and the masses of people claiming that 2.0 would come after 1.9, some even so sure of themselves that they would lash out and call people morons for suggesting that 1.10 would follow 1.9, and that 2.0 would only come when the expansion came out. It's not a decimal point. It's a dot.

…which is what's commonly used as a decimal, at least in programming but probably in other places as well. 1.9=1.90=1.900=1.9(n*0). It's followed by 2.0. I see your line of reasoning, but the prequel of 1.10 is 1.09, not 1.9.

By the way, I have to say we're really debating the interesting parts of the patch here!

Übereil

I agree with Badesumofu, since the period is not (usually) a decimal point in the case of software it makes perfect sense for 1.10 to follow after 1.9, since 2.0 implied it's a new major version, while 1.10 is an upgraded 1.x. A more minor change would instead be 1.9.1 etc, it's nothing strange with this.

I treat it like a decimal point in my software, at least between major and minor versions. Then I usually do another period followed by a build number or build date. So to me 1.9 == 1.90. I dislike it when people go from 1.9 to 1.10.

Originally Posted by Ubereil
By the way, I have to say we're really debating the interesting parts of the patch here!

Ain't it the truth. Although one can only say how much we appreciate Wesp's work so many times. I've tried to keep it to just once per major version number. Aw heck. Yey, Wesp.

It's not a decimal. It looks like one, but it's not. It is correct to go from 1.9 to 1.10.

Patch 1.90 would be the 90th major patch.

Generally when something is released, it will be "1.0". If the developper then releases a minor revision, maybe just correct a few typos in dialouge, or maybe some small balance tweaks, it would be "1.0.1". Then a month later, they release a substantial patch which fixes several bugs, adds some new abilities for a couple of classes that were considered underpowered, it would be "1.1". If they keep releasing patches and get to "1.9", and do another patch it will be "1.10". Then "1.11", "1.12" etc. It will not go to "2.0" unless they release a major expansion, or overhaul the engine or something. The way Wesp does it is misleading and wrong.

This is not just my opinion, or how I think it ought to be, this is fact. Of course it will be a little subjective sometimes what constitutes a major patch or a minor revision, or whether an expansion means going to version "2.0". NWN2 for example is currently at 1.22, with 1.23 in beta. It is not a decimal. It's there so that you can see the difference between "1.23" and "12.3".

Wow…. Is this detail really worth an entire page of this thread?

Wesp can number the damn patch any way he wants afaic. I'm just grateful for the work he's done.

There is no wrong way of versioning. You slap a version on your software the way you want. If that is misleading to some people, too bad. Really, there should be some sort of system behind it and the way Badesumofu describes it is one. Doesn't mean that my system of going with 1.91 is "wrong."

I like discussing small and meaningless things into death.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Wow…. Is this detail really worth an entire page of this thread?

Wesp can number the damn patch any way he wants afaic. I'm just grateful for the work he's done.

My sentiments exactly.

Everytime new patch is released I want to replay Bloodlines.
Hmmm… it's not only that. Everytime Bloodlines is mentioned I want to replay it.
There must be something wrong with me :\

Originally Posted by Badesumofu
This is not just my opinion, or how I think it ought to be, this is fact.

No. This is your opinion. It is no more fact than my comments. I think this is a fun, trivial discussion as long as everyone involved accepts that it's completely subjective.

As I said above, I choose to treat it as a decimal point. I realize it is not a decimal point. The reason I have always done so is so that, when sorted lexicographically, the version numbers will be listed sequentially. It's a personal preference with practical advantages. The only downside is the need to choose a number of 0s to pad the value early in a project.

Of course, no part of my opining is aimed at Wesp. As JDR put it so eloquently: "Wesp can number the damn patch any way he wants."