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

[lucusLoC]

Save compatibility comes up in almost every discussion on development. i am interested in seeing what the community thinks. feel free to list pros and cons, and anything else you think is pertinent to the argument. i will update this post with anything i find interesting.

i personally feel that save compatibility is unimportant, but i also gen a new world every release anyway (if not more), and i do not get too attached to my old forts. if i do have an old fort i want to work on i usually keep all the files associated with it around (in other words i manage forts by having different df "installs," typically one per version)

some possible discussion points:
1. does save compatibility foster expectations in the community? is that a good thing or a bad thing?
2. is broader save compatibility likely to help new players by allowing them to easily play with established forts that they download without having to understand versions? do you think that is a significant avenue for new players entering the community?
3. with consideration to the problems caused by editing raws, is save compatibility important for community forts?
4. do you think the mentality about save compatibility will change as df nears completion and world history and interaction is more fleshed out? if world history continued after playing a world would save compatibility be more important?

pros for save compat:
forts live longer
easier to share saves
easier to gen identical worlds with seeds and play them in new versions*


cons against save compat:
hinders development
may introduce bugs and can confuse bug reporting


*It should be noted that since world and history seeds do not work perfectly between versions as is, that save compatibility is an irrelevant point in regard to world generation. the only thing save compat does is allow you to gen a world in an older version (to get an identical world) and play it in a new version.

I have an open letter to Toady discussing what we have talked about here. please head over and read it, and add a signature to it as well.

[Hyndis]

Most fortresses don't live all that long anyways, and with the huge amount of modding going on you're always generating new worlds anyways.

In the rare case that you are building a gigantic megaproject that takes up an entire 16x16 embark, go ahead and stick with the older version. A new release does not delete the version you already have.

I don't mind if the price to be paid for new features and bugfixes would be for older saves to no longer work. Actually, I think 31.04 is not compatible with 31.03 anyways, due to the large number of fixes that seem to involve the raw files, so you need to regen your world regardless.

Fine for me though!

I'll happy regen if it means I can finally get fish and shells.

[smjjames]

Most fortresses don't live all that long anyways, and with the huge amount of modding going on you're always generating new worlds anyways.

In the rare case that you are building a gigantic megaproject that takes up an entire 16x16 embark, go ahead and stick with the older version. A new release does not delete the version you already have.

I don't mind if the price to be paid for new features and bugfixes would be for older saves to no longer work. Actually, I think 31.04 is not compatible with 31.03 anyways, due to the large number of fixes that seem to involve the raw files, so you need to regen your world regardless.

Fine for me though!

I'll happy regen if it means I can finally get fish and shells.

Using the parameters of an old worldgen should still work, but yea, given that some of the fixes might be in the core (the magma and rain temp stuff, I think) are in .04, there could be some issues.

[Tilla]

Demanding save compatability in an alpha game is silly at best. I'm all for breaking it whenever possible, even for no reason!

[Calhoun]

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.

[neosorcerer]

MY FORTRESS MUST LIVE FOREVER!

[lucusLoC]

oh hell, i should have know someone would vote for the bottom one. serves me right for putting it in. i really hope you are not serious. . . .

i think the only reason Toady fights so hard to keep it is because there was some backlash about it in the past. if we can show him the community does not care we may be able to convince him to take more liberties there and have new features faster in the future. just a thought.

[Logical2u]

Dwarf Fortress - specifically built to be broken

That includes save compatibility, in my eyes. It's nice that we CAN carry over forts most of the time, but if it was hindering progress with a bug fix or the next version, I'd say break compatibility in a heartbeat. The old version will still work and the new version should be better. Eventually, a near-exact duplicate of your old fort location will be found in the new version and you'll start over.

That last option made me think of Copperblazes, for obvious reasons.

[Hyndis]

Each time I need to restart a fortress I make it better and stronger than the previous fortress. Progress! 

Restarting is fine. Its the fun part. Its the middle game that can get boring, where you've passed the startup phase but aren't quite at the megaproject phase yet.

[Kogan Loloklam]

When you are talking about a change like no longer melting in the rain, save compatibility shouldn't be broken. When you are talking about something more significant, like how combat is simulated in world history (IE not a bug, but a real change) then save compatibility doesn't matter.

[lucusLoC]

i noticed a lot of people voting for the first option, and i hope they actually mean it. if you find that you agree more with Kogan on the issue, you should make sure you vote for the second or third option.

[Tahin]

I really don't mind restarting each release. Having a big epic fortress is fun, and all, but it only takes a few hours to get a new fort up and running and the initial planning is one of my favorite parts, anyway.

I voted for #1 (break every bugfix) because I really don't care if that happens and I imagine it might speed up development ever-so-slightly. That said, if save compatibility were to remain intact between bugfix versions but broke when major new features were added, or whatever, that would work too.

[lucusLoC]

well, it is assumed Toady would not break compatibility for no reason, but only if he needed to to get something to work right. . .

[Footkerchief]

"break save compat every bugfix if it means faster development"

That sums up my feelings entirely.

[Rilder]

I've never had a world survive a version (Even a bugfix) So you can guess where I stand.