Print

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

I don't care at all, break save compat every bugfix if it means faster development

153 (53.3%)

it is unimportant, break save comapat every few releases

45 (15.7%)

i like save compat, but its not a deal breaker. break it every few months

69 (24%)

save compat is important, it should not be broken more than once a year, if that

13 (4.5%)

save compat is what i live for, only break it if their is no other way

3 (1%)

Toady cannot ever break save comapt from now on. ever.

0 (0%)

SAVE COMPATIBILITY! ADD IT FOR OLD MAPS NOW! MY FORTRESS MUST LIVE FOREVER! RAAAAAGH! also, i am a moron ;-)

4 (1.4%)

Total Members Voted: 285

[Lemunde]

If it were any other game I might complain about breaking save compatibility but for some reason it's not that big of a deal with Dwarf Fortress.  I guess I look at it as an excuse to ditch my current fortress and start from scratch.  It helps that I know some of the bugs that plagued my last fortress and subsequently influenced it's design won't be there.

[madman]

I like save compatibility, but it only really matters to me for the megaprojects. I've been holding off a really big project until this release (still holding off while I wait for the Linux version), and wouldn't want a game breaking bug to mean I have to restart with a later version. On the other hand, I know how save compatibility can slow down development. I think the recent large gap between versions is an example of this.

My preference would be "keep save compatibility where possible, except where it would slow down development, in which case break it".

[AtomicPaperclip]

Does it even really matter what we think on the issue. It's obvious Toady doesn't like breaking it. And That's the opinion that counts.

Personally I think it's important, It can be broken if needed, but the less often the better.

^ This sums it up. It's nice, but new things are nice also.

[Nihilist]

The bug fix updates to the current version are the only times I've ever even given save compat a thought. Normally a new version is a great excuse for me to build another fort.

[Aklyon]

In the glorious future, where DF is past v1.0, it will be ultrasupermega-important because save comp. then will be the differrence between obliterating a entire complex world that has been active long after the world-gen from a couple months ago finished, or not.

Right now though, its really only changes what you end up with in your engraver's recursive engravings, be it cheeses or epic toothaches.

[Nexii Malthus]

I personally think Toady will be later be able to address save compatibility and be able to import older forts once most game mechanics are done, it seems like a bit of an inevitable engineering effort but eventually it will be worth it once we get to a stage that it is really worth saving an older fort (as Soadreqm demonstrated those current points).

But right now? It seems a waste of thought, it depends how far Toady spaces them out, but they must never hinder development, inspiration is shortlived, strike the earth while it's hot.

[BurnedToast]

I don't care about save compatibility at all. I don't care if every single version breaks it, since I almost always gen a new world anyway.

Edit: fixed typo

[Thedorfwhostoleyourcoffee]

I'll happy tear out the heart and soul of my poor dwarven fortress that I built up, lovingly crafting each dwarf and vanquishing hundreds of threats until I finally felt complete if it means I can finally get fish and shells.

[Rotten]

I am all for breaking compatibility with major releases, but if Toady broke saves every bugfix- like 3.02, then 3.03, I'd start to be a little annoyed. I like playing longer fortresses.

[Bricks]

Breaking for new versions is totally acceptable.  Breaking for bugfixes is sort of frustrating, but I see two possibilities.  One, the old version was so unplayable that compatibility would be pointless, as you'd be bringing a crippled fortress into a fresh world.  Two, the old version was playable enough that breaking compatibility wouldn't be an issue since you could just keep playing the old version.

[zwei]

Save compatibility is .... pointless.

I know Creator likes it that world has history, character and whatnot and player is heavily involved in that and that he would ideally not want to play in brand new world. Certainly something cool to aim for.

But realities are quite unfriendly:

 * Some bug fixes simply require fortress abdandonment world regen to take effect - iirc, melting rain and fish are such bugs. Even with best intentions, bugs need to be fixed and those fixes will often require players to abandon or regen even if saves themselves are compatible (because those fish will only appear in new world...). "bug syndrome".

 * New features. Player now has to regen world if he wants caverns. No amount of save compatibility will help when player has to start anew to make use of new features. This is basically "reaction dillema": If you mod in new reaction to create X you desperatelly need in current fortress, that reaction only becomes available after you regen world.

 * Even if new reatures do not require new world, they may still require different fortress design. This is "wagon problem": if new version added ability to create multi-tile 3x3 wagons in save-compatible version player using 1-tile wide doors and coridors would have to widen halls and doorways, and possibly to install ramps along stairs. Or just leavig it alone and ignore this hauling help. Best choice could very well be to abandon fortress and restart with new design.

 * Similary, If would not want to bring my pre-2010 marksdwarf defended 200 pop fortress to 2010 game because it would be slaughtered by first siege or maybe even ambush. This is "nerf issue". Simply put, when sieges are improved, chances are that any fort that depended on usuall moat-wall-traps will not survive transition and that it would be wholy pointless (thou FUN!) to take it over.

As such, effort spent on save compatiblity is imho, not well spent because player actions might as well render it pointless.

For players that want to keep playing thier fort/world, there is always option of keeping their current version and using that. And that option is fine by me.

[Hyndis]

As such, effort spent on save compatiblity is imho, not well spent because player actions might as well render it pointless.

This.

When 31.04 comes out I'm going to instantly abandon 31.03, regardless of how well my current fortress is currently coming along because I want to have fisherdwarves be useful for more than just being spearcatchers. Doesn't matter if the saves are compatible or not, I'll have to regen anyways to get the fishing back into the game.

[smjjames]

As such, effort spent on save compatiblity is imho, not well spent because player actions might as well render it pointless.

This.

When 31.04 comes out I'm going to instantly abandon 31.03, regardless of how well my current fortress is currently coming along because I want to have fisherdwarves be useful for more than just being spearcatchers. Doesn't matter if the saves are compatible or not, I'll have to regen anyways to get the fishing back into the game.

Might have to anyway since  Toady is currently working on the SDL/OpenGL/40d# merge, so yea that may cause some issues with old saves if not incompatibility, or the problems resulting from doing so may as well make it incompatible.

[Andreus]

Basically, back with v0.28.181.40d I found my Dwarf Fortress playthroughs broadly split into two categories:

1. Catastrophic and hilarious failure as my fortress imploded upon itself
2. My fortress became powerful enough to laugh off elven attacks, goblin sieges, booze explosions, loss of a quarter of its population and

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

vanquish the Happy Fun Stuff with no military casualties

.

Currently, with v0.31 I'm still on my first fortress, built in a first-level cavern next to one of the sprawling underground lakes. It's been running ten years now and it's doing fairly well (I've found several

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

adamantium veins

but having read the Wiki I've been too scared to even touch them) in spite of several attacks by forgotten beasts, the most recent of which was seen off by my legendary miner as he attempted to rescue on of its victims. Honestly I'm not sure what could seriously threaten this fortress now, so I'd be perfectly fine with no savegame compatibility and a fresh start.

[SirPenguin]

I've always felt that Toady's fear of "save compatibility being broken" was always a very weak excuse as to why he took so long releasing. After all, a person wishing to not lose their fort simply has to play the old version until their fort crumbles to its end, something which is suppose to be inevitable.

Save compatibility should be the lowest of priorities when dealing with bug fixing and feature addition. Forts are not meant to last, and the game is certainly not of the caliber (yet) where keeping a good world is of any importance.