Will there be self defense construction for future beta test?They already have self defense extractor.
Heh...
That is a mod thing. I am making the self defending extractor for my rec pack, MRVP.
I could make self defending constructors but it would require DLL to work, and thus would only be in special maps made specifically for it. (I could attach an infinitely alive arc mine to the inside of the cons using DLL and have it be removed when the cons is destroyed). Again, DLL thing.
yeh remember that the public betas are NOT mods, and add nothing to the game that hasnt been done before. (in the way of functionality of current models i mean)
The public betas are the result of two original programmers of the game re-programming the engine and making it more modder friendly. it also removes bugs and makes the game playable on a newer machine.
they are NOT Mods, they are permanent fixes to the original game.
Hmm,How about multi-purpose construction?I mean like construction can haul things, pick up and self defense.2 different kind of construction on menu-1 normal builder 2 multi-purpose construction.The tug should be removed on menu replace with multi-purpose construction?How did you like my idea? :wink:
I will have move my post over bzmd.I may got wrong post here well.
what?
WE REALLY DONT NEED MORE UNITS WE NEED STABILITY AND BUG FIXES FIRST
I agree with killer_AK
I agree, but only two people can fix the stability issues who happen to be GSH and Ken. The rest of us can mod the game without affecting 1.3's development which includes making new vehicles.
In fact making new vehicles exposes faults which effect the stock ones to a lower degree.
confusing sentence :)
all we mean hybridISDF is that no matter where you post it, the public betas are in a nutshell bug fixers.
Oh I see what you mean. :wink:
Added 1 's' and removed 1 word. Make more sense?
I don't know how a thing about calling 1.3 a mod started, I was just saying that the self defending extractors are actually not parts of pb4, but are a separate mod.
yeh that makes a little more sense :)
we must spend time to find a stability to him of the present versions, once we obtain a product stable and functional, just to think there about adding other typical, otherwise we will have many unstable versions all, which will make to decay the product.
Sorry my inglish!
i think what he means is that we need to finalize the Public Betas before anything like that happens. but even if/when that happens, it would not be classed as a public beta version of the game.
Only Activision (the publisher) can call something not-beta. Activision refused to call the 1.2 patch 'official' -- read the screens while it's installing. 1.2 is *beta*, according to Activision. And yes,, that's even after their QA, translation teams were involved in that patch.
What does this mean: Battlezone II is in permanent beta. My hands are tied.
-- GSH
The new gun towers and vehicles seen in public beta 3 and 4 were not made by GSH so they didn't have much of an effect on slowing 1.3's development. GreenHeart made the xsis for the new objects and I made the recycler variants that use them. I then sent all of the files to GSH to be included in 1.3. Pretty much all GSH had to do was add them to his patch installer. Most changes or additions to 1.3 were made by testers then sent to GSH for inclusion in 1.3.
so officially, BZ2 will never be finalized.. it will always be officially declared a beta.
however... GSH might sort of slip it to us that pb# will be the last one he can do. (was going to be cheeky and post pb## :D). that pretty much ties it for the end then.
They only way i can see the new maps & assets slowing the 1.3's development is if they end up cause more bugs to be exposed which may lead to the patch being more stable in the long run. The host can exclude them from game play by not selecting them.
(MPI:GH maps + Wug's insane aip set = Total Game Time: 4 hours minimal if your not defeated first) <- If you don't believe me go try it.
this may be other thread material but... while on the subject of AIP's, they can be used to get a deploybuilding class to deploy at a path point yes? doesnt have to be .dll powered?