FANDOM


Compatibility Edit

How compatible are these changes with BioWare's last patch? If one person creates a module using these changes, would someone not using the Community Patch Project encounter problems while playing the module? (In both single-player and multiplayer contexts, with the latter assuming the host has the changes on that end.) I just skimmed the changes so far, but at first glance some of them look potentially problematic as far as compatibility goes. --The Krit 17:00, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

  • Its compatible as it wont crash etc. If there is something which doesnt exists in 1.69 (itemproperties on item that wasnt available in 1.69, cost parameter item property) they wont work under 1.69 and player will probably see Badd Streff or some nonsense text instead original itemproperties. For new blueprints, they will work - builder must place them into area and then it doesnt matter if blueprint exists anymore. So in brief - new features wont work, changed stuff will automatically restore into 1.69 default. --ShaDoOoW 17:51, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • The new blueprints must be placed in an area? CreateObject() does not work with them? --The Krit 01:05, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if the module was done under 1.70 and uses an CreateObject to make a placeable, it fails if the player playing the module don't have 1.70 installed (as in this situation player in single player game run both server+client at once and the blueprint is not available in his version). --ShaDoOoW 07:16, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • So, no, the blueprints do not have to be placed in an area. You did not mean "must", but "provided"; not "then" but "because". Instead of "For new blueprints, they will work - builder must place them into area and then it doesnt matter if blueprint exists anymore", you meant "For the new blueprints, they will work, provided the builder places them into an area so it doesn't matter if the blueprint exists anymore." --The Krit 18:54, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Odd phrasing Edit

Not sure how to make sense of "This special ability intended for dragons was always there but unimplemented and disabled". It seems to be saying that this special ability was always there, but it was not there (not implemented). Since the script is in the standard resources, I went with dropping "unimplemented". --The Krit 17:01, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.