Battlezone Forums

AHadley wrote:Frankly, with a community like BZ1 has, I'm not suprised Ken hasn't created a private test group. I personally wouldn't trust any of you with a development build of anything.

Yeah, it would probably be like this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1360

Oh.. wait, the Kids in Bz1 actually held deveolpment together for 2 plus years... give them some credit for doing the work.

Apollo wrote:Yeah, it would probably be like this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1360

Not sure if the skill of reciprocal and mutual working together is proven, but the proficiency to thread lock has become a polished craft.

Apollo wrote:

AHadley wrote:Frankly, with a community like BZ1 has, I'm not suprised Ken hasn't created a private test group. I personally wouldn't trust any of you with a development build of anything.

Yeah, it would probably be like this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1360

I fail to see the relevance of that link, could you please explain ?

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:One can claim "testing" indefinitely.

The testing cycle ends at release, at which point the maintenance cycle is begun.

Apollo wrote:Why do you talk about a game soo much that you don't play?
All your ranting aside, can you do anything positive for the game?

Not playing multiplayer =/= not playing.
He's a programmer. I guess that answers your question.

Apollo wrote:Software development processes are normally done by empolyees where the business is making the decisions as to what changes, doing the testing, QA and the consumer pays for product.

Somebody never heard of public testing?

Apollo wrote:When you are making changes to software you have no right to, it's understandable that you are going to alienate part of the public that didn't want their game changed. Consumers want it done right, they don't want warez and they want it near perfect because they paid for it.

I've heard that bulls**t somewhere before. I challenged you on it earlier in this thread and you still haven't responded. Also, I'd dare say you lost the right to look down on warez when you started hosting a copy of 1.4 on your website.

Apollo wrote:Yeah, it would probably be like this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1360

Oh.. wait, the Kids in Bz1 actually held deveolpment together for 2 plus years... give them some credit for doing the work.

You can't take an isolated, three-post argument pruned into TttM as an example of what happens on the private boards. It simply doesn't work, especially considering you don't have the context of what happened before those three posts. The private development board gets things done (admittedly slowly; we have a small team, all of whom do other things).

AHadley wrote:

Apollo wrote:Why do you talk about a game soo much that you don't play?
All your ranting aside, can you do anything positive for the game?

Not playing multiplayer =/= not playing.
He's a programmer. I guess that answers your question.

Spock rustled jimmies at dot-net by accusing people of not playing.

AHadley wrote:

Apollo wrote:Software development processes are normally done by empolyees where the business is making the decisions as to what changes, doing the testing, QA and the consumer pays for product.

Somebody never heard of public testing?

Minecraft and Eve Online does public testing if I may add.

AHadley wrote:Somebody never heard of public testing?

Public testing of warez? Sure.. on a torrent site.

Also, those questions wasn't for you and he already gave his answer.

You guys already answered the warez question, no licenses for the executables was posted.

GBD the link shows how well you guys work together, i don't believe Ken ever spoke that way to anyone. (even privately)
So Ahadley implying how noone else can be trusted in development work just shows his bias to me more than anything else.

Apollo wrote:Public testing of warez? Sure.. on a torrent site. [...] You guys already answered the warez question, no licenses for the executables was posted.

As I've said before, cite a law that makes 1.5 a) warez and b) not a patch. The keyword there is cite.

Apollo wrote: Also, those questions wasn't for you and he already gave his answer.

What, speak only when spoken to now?

Apollo wrote:So Ahadley implying how noone else can be trusted in development work just shows his bias to me more than anything else.

No, simply saying that I wouldn't want to trust to beta test *my* software. Whether or not you *can* be trusted is another matter. As is the fact that you'd no doubt be completely disinterested anyway.

The link you posted shows a three-post argument about the BZS scriptor. I don't know how much you've played with that thing, but I'd wager you haven't, much. The BZS scriptor has zero relevance to 1.3, thus the link is utterly invalid.

AHadley wrote:

Apollo wrote:Public testing of warez? Sure.. on a torrent site. [...] You guys already answered the warez question, no licenses for the executables was posted.

As I've said before, cite a law that makes 1.5 a) warez and b) not a patch. The keyword there is cite.

As is the fact that you'd no doubt be completely disinterested anyway.

The link you posted shows a three-post argument about the BZS scriptor. I don't know how much you've played with that thing, but I'd wager you haven't, much. The BZS scriptor has zero relevance to 1.3, thus the link is utterly invalid.

Receiving stolen IP. If you want the code for it you can go look it up yourself.

I did ask him.

The link is valid in showing a pattern of behavior.

Apollo wrote:Receiving stolen IP. If you want the code for it you can go look it up yourself.

I did ask him.

The link is valid in showing a pattern of behavior.

Warez means illegal distribution of copyrighted content (the game, in this case). 1.5 requires you to have the original game in order to use it, for which you must have paid; you would thus have to prove it is not a patch before you could prove it is warez.

I have no idea what the middle bit is supposed to mean.

The link shows an isolated example, not a pattern. GBD and Nielk1 work well together; 1.3, BZC, older iterations of CP2, various other projects.

AHadley wrote:

Apollo wrote:Receiving stolen IP. If you want the code for it you can go look it up yourself.

Warez means illegal distribution of copyrighted content (the game, in this case). 1.5 requires you to have the original game in order to use it, for which you must have paid; you would thus have to prove it is not a patch before you could prove it is warez.

Provide the license to the new executable otherwise it is illegal, it is copyrighted IP being distributed. It doesn't matter if you have to have the rest of the game to use it, it's illegal period. ( in any shape or form) The rest of the changes are simply mod work and that is covered under the original license from 1998 and is perfectly legal.

AHadley wrote: The testing cycle ends at release, at which point the maintenance cycle is begun.

When free, a "release" is unnecessary and counterproductive. Most especially when the love to tweak is all encompassing.

If 1.5 were being developed by a company they'd be doing this part internally. Ken is a one-man army; he doesn't get that luxury.

I see Apollo is going for the flawed argument again. Patching does not require a license. The best case you have is a restive ToS that says not to do it but even that isn't actually legally binding in the UK and it has never been legally tested here.
Making something "official", be it a patch or anything else, does.

Apollo wrote:

AHadley wrote:Frankly, with a community like BZ1 has, I'm not suprised Ken hasn't created a private test group. I personally wouldn't trust any of you with a development build of anything.

Yeah, it would probably be like this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1360
lll
Oh.. wait, the Kids in Bz1 actually held development together for 2 plus years... give them some credit for doing the work.

Did you serious link a thread in which GBD and I had a fake tong in cheek argument? Holy heck you are detached.

Look, its painfully obvious that all you can do is make crap up at this point failing to have any actual argument and no facts on your side.

Nielk1 wrote:Did you serious link a thread in which GBD and I had a fake tong in cheek argument? Holy heck you are detached.

Ehhh, that's really weak. . .unless of course, you're now openly admitting you strive to get threads locked. If so, GSH needs to have a short sit-down with you.

Psychedelic Rhino wrote:

Nielk1 wrote:Did you serious link a thread in which GBD and I had a fake tong in cheek argument? Holy heck you are detached.

Ehhh, that's really weak. . .unless of course, you're now openly admitting you strive to get threads locked. If so, GSH needs to have a short sit-down with you.

You need help. Seriously. You keep seeing things that aren't there.