|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » VtM-Bloodlines - Unofficial Patch v6.3

Default VtM-Bloodlines - Unofficial Patch v6.3

July 4th, 2009, 00:30
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.
Myrthos is offline

Myrthos

Myrthos's Avatar
Cave Canem
Super Moderator
RPGWatch Team

#1

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,449

Default 

July 4th, 2009, 00:30
To anyone with experience on the patch,can I install it on 6.2?

I'd just like to interject here and point out that I'm not going to say anything to spoil the mood, Chief. I'll just float here and watch. Don't mind me, just sitting here, floating and watching, that's me.
Kostas is offline

Kostas

Kostas's Avatar
Dormant Watcher

#2

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dear Green Place
Posts: 1,651

Default 

July 4th, 2009, 03:07
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.
Badesumofu is offline

Badesumofu

Badesumofu's Avatar
Sentinel

#3

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 454

Default 

July 4th, 2009, 04:43
Originally Posted by Badesumofu View Post
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
Moriendor is offline

Moriendor

Moriendor's Avatar
Spielkind

#4

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Schland
Posts: 1,931

Default 

July 4th, 2009, 08:57
Originally Posted by Badesumofu View Post
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

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#5

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

July 4th, 2009, 18:06
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.
Toaster is offline

Toaster

Toaster's Avatar
Sentinel

#6

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 259

Default 

July 4th, 2009, 21:24
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 View Post
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.
Guhndahb is offline

Guhndahb

Guhndahb's Avatar
Sentinel

#7

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 319

Default 

July 5th, 2009, 05:38
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".
Badesumofu is offline

Badesumofu

Badesumofu's Avatar
Sentinel

#8

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 454

Default 

July 5th, 2009, 05:44
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.
JDR13 is online now

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#9

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,033

Default 

July 6th, 2009, 12:53
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.
Thaurin is offline

Thaurin

SasqWatch

#10

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,419

Default 

July 6th, 2009, 17:32
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
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.
mogwins is offline

mogwins

mogwins's Avatar
Sentinel

#11

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 294

Default 

July 6th, 2009, 17:55
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 :\
Konjad is offline

Konjad

Konjad's Avatar
Watch traitor from Codex

#12

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 712

Default 

July 7th, 2009, 02:03
Originally Posted by Badesumofu View Post
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."
Guhndahb is offline

Guhndahb

Guhndahb's Avatar
Sentinel

#13

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 319
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » VtM-Bloodlines - Unofficial Patch v6.3
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:38.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch