Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
Single Player ForumFor those who favour Single Player & Open Characters MP action. Discuss and help with strategies, gameplay tips and other single player community topics
With all the different threads with different focus' around, I thought this might be useful.
Mods
PC Users:
the modified .dll for multiple instances is available here
rwm/rrm and muling apps work
Mac Users:
modified .dll for multiple instances - unknown
rwm/rrm - working and available to download here
Trading
The ban on taking items BACK in versions still exists.
So if you have updated to patch 1.12a you MUST state that in your tags.
You may NOT bring 1.12a items back into 1.11b. If you're the tiniest bit unsure of if an item had the smallest interaction with another 1.12a item or character, then by forum rules we'd consider it a 1.12a item.
If you have found something in 1.11b and move it to 1.12a, feel free to label it 1.12a.
If something is found prior to 1.11b and is moved to 1.12a, please label it 1.07 > 1.12a (for example)
Muling
GoMule and ATMA working
If you are going to trade 1.11b and 1.12a keep separate stashes, separately named as you would if you played HC and SC, modded and unmodded.
Would now have:
save/softcore/modded/1.11b
save/softcore/modded/1.12a
If you are only going to trade in 1.12a then feel free just to have the one stash and declare 1.12a but you cannot trade with 1.11b traders. If you accidentally drop a 1.12a item into a 1.11b stash then that whole stash is now 1.12a.
Mod support on the SPF
The policy did change to allow accepted mods to be supported; including RWM/RRM. But that does not extend to mod-making.
Mac users moving to 1.12a is an important part of forum and it is acceptable to help them. However, that does not extend to discussions on code altering; that becomes mod-making which is more appropriate to the Phrozen Keep.
Modified .dlls should be confirmed for use by the Mods before use. The multiple instance .dll for 1.12a is accepted.
There's enough walls of text in this thread to build a small gated community.
There's also enough drivel to make a little pond in the middle,
and enough quacks to populate it with ducks. -- Kossy
Last edited by Thyiad; 22-06-2008 at 12:29..
Reason: adding the links
If it does we're both in trouble, I've had vanilla-installation players pop into my games to make runewords. No the thing is, that doesn't help them long term and not at all with RRM.
There's enough walls of text in this thread to build a small gated community.
There's also enough drivel to make a little pond in the middle,
and enough quacks to populate it with ducks. -- Kossy
I think I have both Mac RRM and RWM working, but I will test over the weekend and check in with Thy before posting anything. The RWM fits in the patch file and in 6.4Mb. Bad news is the file RRM is in 250+ Mb.
Ok, I have internet again (yay). It looks like my couple of days away was at a nice and convenient time to leave Thyiad holding the ball on this one ()...
I've read ALL of the threads, posts and discussions (including the threads that are locked and the deleted posts) about 1.11b being "the same" as 1.12a. Here's my opinion on this:
1.11b IS NOT THE SAME AS 1.12a
... as I said, I read all of the previous discussions and points about "the gameplay is unchanged" and "this'll divide the community", and yada, yada. All of that is trumped by the existing precedent of "The SPF does not move items/characters backwards in version".
I don't care if it's your opinion that they screwed up - AGAIN. Blizzard considers them separate versions, and so do we. We've never allowed people to move items back in version, and we're not about to start.
Period.
As Thyiad mentioned, if you trade, you MUST take precautions to avoid sending items from 1.12a into 1.11b.
******
Sidenote: Personal, Non-Moderator's Opinion: As for the "division" this will cause within the trade community, I'm not buying it... I had similar concerns with 1.10 and 1.11, and although it took some people more time to upgrade than others, generally the fallout was very minimal (iirc, salvo & I were the last 1.10 holdouts for a long, long time, but otherwise it had all straightened out within a month or two).
In my opinion, since "there's no going back", folks that want to keep trading will upgrade soon enough - the entire community will take a little while, but it'll happen.
If you have found something in 1.11 and move it to 1.12a, feel free to label it 1.12.
If something is found prior to 1.11 and is moved to 1.12a, please label it 1.07 > 1.12a (for example)
I understand that, in trading, there needs to be disclosure of the version an item currently is (ie, has been brought forward to). This is primarily to let a receiver be certain that they can make use of said item (a v1.11b item is useless to a player who only plays v1.09, for example), and prevent some players from feeling 'ripped off' in trades. I also understand that if there is a game mechanical difference between two items (v1.07 Wizardspike with 95 res all, and the later version with only 75, for example), this needs to be disclosed, as well as what version it has been brought forward to.
What I don't understand, though, is the different standards for bringing forward items from v1.10 (and earlier versions, if the items are identical stat-wise) to v1.12, versus bringing v1.11 items to v1.12. If your reasoning is that a v1.11-found item can be brought forward and labelled as v1.12, then this should apply to any item from any patch, so long as there are no game-mechanical differences between the items. If I bring a v1.09 Wizardspike forward to v1.12, how is that different from a v1.11 Wizardspike?
Also, you make no mention of v1.11b. I'm tentatively assuming it would follow the same rules as above for a v1.11 item, but I'm not sure, as you've made it quite clear on numerous occasions that v1.11b is not the same as v1.11 (v1.11b being a later version, and all). What are the rules for these items?
My apologies for leaving off the 'b'; I'll correct that.
Pharoah. The version tags movement for all items prior to 1.11b will stay. If you start from 1.07 and move it to 1.11b you label it as such.
We were willing to allow a compromise for 1.11b and 1.12a. But if that confuses you then we can change the trade rules back so that you must label items found in 1.11b and moved forward 1.12a as 1.11b>1.12a. We were trying to appreciate our muling programs don't differentiate between the two - at the moment.
We're not going through this from now until 1.13 is released.
There's enough walls of text in this thread to build a small gated community.
There's also enough drivel to make a little pond in the middle,
and enough quacks to populate it with ducks. -- Kossy
We were trying to appreciate our muling programs don't differentiate between the two - at the moment.
If you're implying that the muling programs will differentiate between the two in the future, you're mistaken. I'd explain why, but I wouldn't want to break the rules.
There's enough walls of text in this thread to build a small gated community.
There's also enough drivel to make a little pond in the middle,
and enough quacks to populate it with ducks. -- Kossy
We were trying to appreciate our muling programs don't differentiate between the two - at the moment.
If I'm not mistaken, the allowed muling programs not only don't differentiate between v1.11b and v1.12a, but they don't differentiate between any of v1.10 final, v1.11, v1.11b, and v1.12a. That was my point, and I was wondering why the latter were treated differently than the former.
If it's to maintain pure labeling of whatever version an item was found in, then they should all be labeled as such. If it's to accommodate muling programs and the players who use them, then v1.10 final and later should be treated identically. I've been using ATMA since shortly after v1.10 went live, thus the majority of stuff in my main stash is either v1.10 final or v1.11b. However, if you picked an item from my stash that ATMA said was v1.10+, I certainly would not be able to tell you whether it was found in v1.10 or v1.11b. Hell, there's a slim chance it may have even been found in v1.11 (no 'b').
I suspect I'm not alone in this, either. Say you have a player who has a large v1.10 stash, and they upgrade to v1.11 or a later version (let's just say 1.11b, and pretend it's before v1.12a came out, to make things easier). They find (or are told) that their characters and stashes are compatible, so after upgrading, they add new (v1.11b) items to this stash, and keep playing. Some time down the road, they decide to trade or participate in a giveaway, but now cannot because they don't know which items were v1.10 and which were v1.11b. ATMA doesn't care, the game doesn't care, but they're still screwed.
Don't mistake me here. I'm not trying to create extra work for you, nor am I saying that because of binary equivalence that you should allow version regression of items. All I am saying is that the 'found in' version disclosure should be along these lines: classic, v1.07, v1.08, v1.09, and finally v1.10+. Obviously the exact current version (including any alphabetic appellation) should be disclosed at all times, to prevent version regression. However, having a 'found in' requirement, for items where it makes no difference, is creating more headaches for no apparent purpose.
To summarize, clearly this disclosure requirement is not to prevent version regression (I've covered the difference between 'found in' and 'brought forward to'), and nor is it to accommodate muling programs, as you claimed it was (since these do not make a distinction between, say, v1.10 and v1.11, yet you do). Thus I'm still unclear as to the purpose of this requirement. If it serves no purpose, perhaps it should not exist.
& Platinum Pal
)...
Linear Mode
