1.0.3 (ECM) original release post

[KrazeeXXL]

lol anyone here who ever read a manual before played a game? :rotflmao:

I never did in 23 from 27 years of playing computer games

and lol about the mp, too. I just remember one "mp" bug. Me and my best friend were not able to fight against each others. Tactical combat allways crashed as our ships met. I doubt that the developers ever played a single mp game. Or they would've noticed.

mickar, I personally am interested in all different pov's. It is about seeing the whole picture. Some of us try, some don't.

You seem to be stucked in your 20 turn games. But you're an exception, perhaps not even one-tenth of a percent who like to play this game this way. It is an interesting kind of view with a big xp behind and I just can say again: "as it was meant to be"

[Mentat]

Mickar, please can we close that topic?
This entire argument is not about botf since some time now, its all about you. You are trying to "impose" your thoughts about correct MP/botf on the rest of the comunity, while you should rather convince us. Nobody is ignoring your expertise, nor you personally. You simply need to accept that other people have different views, on the game, on gaming etc.

From all what you stated lately this sounds more like you are facing some not botf related problems at the moment and its no solution to drag them into this forum; at least not this way. I fear if you continue this way, you will lose a lot of the credibility which was well earned from your comittment to the game and this forum.

As for the point you always keep to reiterate: You feel that fixing the bugs will take away something from the game. But while you keep postulating that you are the best botf player ever, no matter what setup, it seems that you fear that your "advantage" in being able to play botf in MP will be lost. You forget that while this game is for you pretty much a "violent space conquest", there are some people who want to embrace the Star Trek feeling in this game. Thus they care about canon content, and an entertaining gameplay, no matter if you win or lose.

Attacking the Builders, Codemasters, etc. doesn't really help aswell. Don't get me wrong, but while you seem to be an exceptional clever guy, your actual displayed social skills are not so smart.

This said, I want to state that your feedback on Mods, ideas etc. is extremly important to the Builders, Players and pretty much everyone in this forum. Just give it try and equip your ego with some liberalism.

[mickar]

Mentat,

I haven't attacked anyone personally, please show me the same courtesy and respect.

And I'm not trying to 'impose' anything on anyone. I've already stated my annoyance. Single mode players, like you, dont have either the expertise or experience to make decisions that affect botf in multi mode.

Have your opinions, we all have them. But please, don't talk with certainty that you know about botf.

Edit: When someone, like dissy, gives opinion on what should be changed I tend to respect it, regardless of whether I agree or not. Why? Because he's been there and done that. Perhaps it's just the way you single mode players word things. You talk with a certainty, like you 'know'. You also make it sound like you only lose a game because ppl like me 'exploit' the game. This is false.

[thunderchero]

I would like everyone who has posted on this topic to read the rules of this forum again.

forum rules

pay close attention to the first statement: No flaming

here is a discription of flaming;

Flaming is a hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), by e-mail or on Video-sharing websites.

An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. In some cases, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be called "trolls". Most often however, flamers are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject.

EDIT; I have been ask exactly who has been flaming on this post.
I don't want to make a list but I will say over 80% of post was nothing but one large flame by all. This post is not directed to any one person but all that have posted.

thunderchero

[Martok]

Botf was designed and intented to be an online multi player game. I think we can all agree on that.

Actually, I suspect most here would *disagree* with you on that. At least going by the posts here at AFC, a significant majority of folks play BOTF primarily -- if not exclusively -- in SP mode. So I don't know about what you just said.

Not that I'm knocking our MPers at all. However, to claim that BOTF was designed/intended specifically for online play quite frankly seems....a little myopic.


Anyway, for what it's worth, I've long applauded the fixes/changes in the 1.03 version. Anything that removes bugs and exploits is a good thing IMHO.

[mickar]

Interesting comment Martok. You applaud the fixes/changes made in 1.03 as it removes the 'exploits' then admit that most ppl play in single mode. This begs the question:

If ppl play in single mode only, what is the point of removing any 'exploits'? From what ppl say, only human players use the 'expoits'.

Are you claiming that the ai is abusing the exploits in order to win?

Secondly, I strongly 'disagree' with you regarding the intended use of botf. imho, it was designed as an online game to be played with multiple human players. Just because, 10 years later, ppl mainly play in single mode doesn't change the original intended design of the game.

[thunderchero]

I hate to lock any thread any more, but since this post will no longer be used for 1.0.3 project it really has little use now.

A new thread will be started when next release is ready.

thunderchero

[Gottesanbeter]

Btw

what happened to the DL of the new vanilla version? I'd like to download it but it seems that the patch is not available in the DL section.

Thanks

[KrazeeXXL]

it's called ECM (Error Correction Mod) now

[Gottesanbeter]

Thanks a lot!

[Peter1981]

12. 5. Disable error message at 0x6EDD0
75 A1 -> EB A1
jnz short loc_46F9EC -> jmp short loc_46F9EC

should read

12. 5. Disable error message at 0x6EDD0
75 A1 -> EB 1A
jnz short loc_46F9EC -> jmp short loc_46F9EC

i think as the original always causes CTD? - can someone please check this.

[thunderchero]

I checked in ECM2 that SCT created and it is 1A

funny it is same in DCER original post (A1) lol took 3 years to catch mistype.

thunderchero

[Peter1981]

It's wired because it's correct in the 1.0.3 mod of the game! lol. Anyway if the original team who worked on trek.exe had had me checking the code we'd only be waiting for the late 23rd century for the alpha test demo

[ma_di]

how i download 1.0.3

[thunderchero]

how i download 1.0.3

this version is no longer available

thunderchero