Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

I would imagine them singing working songs and shanties

[Random_Dragon]

I would imagine them singing working songs and shanties

Then again... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjZ1B897Tuk

Only undwarvenly thing about that thing is that dorfs don't drink out of wooden pints. Though it would be hilarious if one assumes that a "dwarven pint" is what a sane undwarvenly person would call an entire barrel's worth.

[TomiTapio]

Novel thought while we're waiting on .40.25...would you expect dwarves to sing, yodel, or joik?

Singing, throat singing. Low register long notes, chanting at the stone walls. Echoing harmonies in the halls. Your typical devil cult chanting. But they worship the rock, the metals, the gems. Little bit of beer festival yodeling, but as Brian Blessed.

[Camulus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Rayc]

This has most likely been posted, but singing dwarf should be something like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWz0qVvBZ0

[vjmdhzgr]

This has most likely been posted, but singing dwarf should be something like this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWz0qVvBZ0

You won't hear actual singing, and I don't even know if the game will describe the singing very in-depth, but I I'd say that this is what real dwarven music is like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ymgFyzbDo . Of course, the fact that it isn't described beyond the musical form is probably beneficial in this case. People can imagine their dwarves singing however they want. Just like people can imagine goblins as either the more common goblin as a small incredibly pointy eared and nosed creature, or you could imagine them like LOTR where it's a synonym for orc.

[NW_Kohaku]

You won't hear actual singing, and I don't even know if the game will describe the singing very in-depth, but I I'd say that this is what real dwarven music is like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ymgFyzbDo . Of course, the fact that it isn't described beyond the musical form is probably beneficial in this case. People can imagine their dwarves singing however they want. Just like people can imagine goblins as either the more common goblin as a small incredibly pointy eared and nosed creature, or you could imagine them like LOTR where it's a synonym for orc.

Ustquats Belglasms, "Rapidshort the Bag of Winding", is a dwarven song composed in 167 by Asmel Gomathsil.  It is well-composed in 4 stanzas of folk dance.  It depicts a dwarf and dwarves in iambic pentameter.  The dwarves are traveling.  This song depicts the founding of the Pullys of Loathing in 42 by Urist Kengzimkel. This song menaces with notes of finely-arranged piccoloing.

[DwarfCon5]

Is it likely that .24 will be save-compatible to .25, or whatever it may be called, with all the arts and crafts being implemented?

Is there a specific place where we can check to see if upcoming updates are planned to be save-compatible?

[Knight Otu]

While the last word is that the next release will be save-compatible (and this may still change), you won't get the full experience as a newly-generated world. There won't be art styles, random instruments, collected knowledge, wandering troupes, and all the other stuff coming through world gen. You'll be able to create taverns, temples, and probably libraries in your fortress, attracting mercenaries and the like, and fulfilling dwarven needs that way, but it will be barren compared to a newly-generated world.

There is no single place that'll always say whether an upcoming version is save-compatible, though Toady will possibly say it in the devlog. If not there, there's a good chance someone will ask in the Future of the Fortress threads when it seems in doubt.

[Eldin00]

Historically, if the major version number changes (i.e. .34.xx to .40.xx), saves should be assumed incompatible, while if only the minor version changes (i.e. .40.23 to .40.24) saves can be assumed to be compatible. It's generally assumed that the upcoming version will be update the major version number, but I haven't seen anything official from Toady yet. There are a few exceptions to these rules, and it should be kept in mind that 'save compatibility' means you can load up the old save and expect to be able to play, but you may miss out on some of the features/fixes in the new version until you generate a new world.

All of that being said, Comments from Toady within the last year would seem to indicate that he's making save compatibility a higher priority than in the past, and he commented in one of the devlog posts or a FoTF reply (don't remember exactly where at the moment) that his working version was still save compatible with the current version at that point.

[Dunamisdeos]

Hey, I have a question. I see Toady is talking about some maps being in Libraries. Will this mean that armies that have the proper knowledge in their civ library would be able to travel a farther distance to your fort? If they know where you are (through news traveling) and they have a map, maybe it could work.

[Knight Otu]

That's maps of libraries, not maps in libraries. Well, there may be maps in libraries as well, but the most recent devlog is talking about the former, and the latter wouldn't be used by armies and other travelers yet.

[NW_Kohaku]

Even if what we get is 40.25, rather than 42.01, keep in mind that many big changes tend to involve the necessity of hotfixes that often break save compatibility because whatever was causing the bug could also corrupt saves.  40.01, 40.02, and 40.03 all broke save compatibility with one another, for example. It's why a lot of DF players tend to only start a serious fort on even-numbered versions, since any serious release is liable to have some small thing that gets a hotfix.

[lethosor]

There was also a save corruption bug in 0.40.20 that Toady decided not to break compatibility for. One of the reasons Toady has stated for not wanting to break compatibility completely is the ability to test older bugged saves, so I doubt that he'd make an effort to keep the next version compatible but break compatibility immediately afterwards. DF does have a system in place to prevent loading saves from specific versions of DF - I believe it only checks whether a save's version number is in a specific range (Quietust would know better), but it could be changed to refuse to load saves from a version with a major corruption bug.

[NW_Kohaku]

There was also a save corruption bug in 0.40.20 that Toady decided not to break compatibility for. One of the reasons Toady has stated for not wanting to break compatibility completely is the ability to test older bugged saves, so I doubt that he'd make an effort to keep the next version compatible but break compatibility immediately afterwards. DF does have a system in place to prevent loading saves from specific versions of DF - I believe it only checks whether a save's version number is in a specific range (Quietust would know better), but it could be changed to refuse to load saves from a version with a major corruption bug.

Yeah, but it's not like Toady just felt like breaking compatibility in most other instances where it happened, either.  It was just that adding a feature either changed the game in too fundamental a fashion, or else a bug had to be corrected in such a way that save compatibility had to be broken.  Save corruption bugs, for example, may require the way in which the saved data is encoded and read to be changed, and it may just be impossible to correct errors made in previous versions. 

That said, a quick look at the wiki says that most version incompatibility occurs within the first couple hotfixes of a major (meaning second decimal version change) release.