Battlezone Forums

Nielk1,
There is only one side, Spocks group, the rest of us are all individuals.
Anyone can play what the want, this is not so with Spocks group.

To make a statement that it's "still close to the original" just means you don't know enough about the changes and what is original.

What lies are you refering to? That's a blanket statement with no facts to back it up.

The 911 servers are run by a 3rd party that rarely plays.

I'd always advocate the disk over an installer version, whoever it is from. You only ever have it on the maker's word that an installer doesn't make changes from the vanilla - no way to be sure unless you know the game inside out.

AHadley wrote:I'd always advocate the disk over an installer version, whoever it is from. You only ever have it on the maker's word that an installer doesn't make changes from the vanilla - no way to be sure unless you know the game inside out.

Any change can become an issue but without any updates the retail 1.4 is crippled.
I'm trying to stick to, if it fixes something without changing gameplay, that should be ok.

Disk install followed by updating to 1.5 is the only way to be really sure what you're getting.

AHadley wrote:Disk install followed by updating to 1.5 is the only way to be really sure what you're getting.

I know the disk install but i still don't know what i'm getting in 1.5 with over 1300 changes and 99% of the testing being restricted.

You could say exactly the same with 1.3, but it's still Battlezone and it's still being made by an original developer.

It's a mod, meaning NOT original ofc in Bz2's case, it needed a lot of work to make it stable as Acti. stoped supporting it after 1.1 patch and was left in a beta state. I don't know all the arguements of the Bz2 vets but I do know they exploited the bugs even on new players, insuring that player quits and without further development Bz2 probably wouldn't be around today.

Not official, but made by the original developers. That is as close as you can get to a patch in BZ1 or BZ2. How you can describe 1.5 as a mod is beyond me.

AHadley wrote:Not official, but made by the original developers. That is as close as you can get to a patch in BZ1 or BZ2. How you can describe 1.5 as a mod is beyond me.

Any changes to the retail install of the game that didn't come from the Publisher releasing a patch is a mod.

Who said it had to come from the publisher to be a patch?

A patch is a patch if it comes from a developer.

If it comes from community, it is a "community patch" which can be considered a mod, loosely.

If it comes from both, its a patch.

if it comes from the publisher, it is an "official" patch, which means you can get support for it from the publisher.

That is pretty much it. It is a patch made by the (a) original developer.

1.5 is a patch.
BzE is a mod.
All non-standard 1.4 variations (so many letters) are community patches (mods of a sort).

If you change the retail install in any way it's a mod, if the Publisher changes it, it's a patch.

Apollo wrote:If you change the retail install in any way it's a mod, if the Publisher changes it, it's a patch.

That goes against the software definitions of the words. I am defining them as a programmer, what are you defining them as?

Defined where and by whom?
I'm defining them as a consumer and legality.

Apollo wrote:Defined where and by whom?
I'm defining them as a consumer and legality.

Legality doesn't determine the definition of the word, it simply determines its legal standing in given situations. A patch can be a patch and be under different legal relation then another patch.