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

[Soadreqm]

Save compatibility does not matter all that much yet; there's not much you can do to change the world, the legends mode is very limited, and there are some rare but irritating world-breaking bugs. But, as development goes on, I expect it'll start mattering more and more. In the glorious pie-in-the-sky future, when every decision you make will affect international politics in some subtle and possibly devastating way, and we can find old battlefields where our own armies fought half a century ago, and read books written by adventurer-historians about our great dwarven strongholds, it'll be much more irritating to have to ditch a world with rich history to a version upgrade.

[lucusLoC]

you are absolutely right soadreqm, but i imagine all of that will only be relevant after version 1.0.

[neosorcerer]

Save compatibility does not matter all that much yet; there's not much you can do to change the world, the legends mode is very limited, and there are some rare but irritating world-breaking bugs. But, as development goes on, I expect it'll start mattering more and more. In the glorious pie-in-the-sky future, when every decision you make will affect international politics in some subtle and possibly devastating way, and we can find old battlefields where our own armies fought half a century ago, and read books written by adventurer-historians about our great dwarven strongholds, it'll be much more irritating to have to ditch a world with rich history to a version upgrade.

This.

I want to build a glorious kingdom that will last the ages and then pass on it to the grand kids someday! A REAL succession fort!

[Hyndis]

Save compatibility does not matter all that much yet; there's not much you can do to change the world, the legends mode is very limited, and there are some rare but irritating world-breaking bugs. But, as development goes on, I expect it'll start mattering more and more. In the glorious pie-in-the-sky future, when every decision you make will affect international politics in some subtle and possibly devastating way, and we can find old battlefields where our own armies fought half a century ago, and read books written by adventurer-historians about our great dwarven strongholds, it'll be much more irritating to have to ditch a world with rich history to a version upgrade.

^
This.

Currently there is really no continuity. Yes, your dwarves might engrave pictures of a previous fortress full of burning dwarves, but they do that anyways with worldgen history. In my current fort, most of my engravings are of some titan killing elves and performing dentistry on dwarves. Its just the one tooth they removed. Over and over again in engravings. Must have been an epic toothache.

Until the army and diplomacy arcs are complete where you can actually have an impact on the world outside of your fortress, continuity really isn't that important. If I want a new fortress, I just generate up my medium region worldgen, takes a minute or two, and then I start playing.

[lucusLoC]

ah, but what did you vote for now? i assume it was high on the list?

[Hyndis]

ah, but what did you vote for now? i assume it was high on the list?

Yes, right now I don't care about compatibility. If breaking compatibility improves development, so be it. The average lifespan of my fortresses are only about 1 real week. After that I get bored and start over, or some FUN happens, or want to tinker with my mods some more which usually requires a regen.

When there are epic, continuous worlds then continuity will be very important. Right now that doesn't exist, so there's no real point in making saves compatible between versions.

[Vicomt]

I come from a development environment where save compatibility is an absolute, If I stopped making my save files compatible between versions, I'd have some very very pissed off customers quite quickly.

That said, unless you're in an environment where that compatibility is necessary, don't do it. Go further than that even, break it willingly and wantonly. DF is an alpha. It's structure should be changing and evolving constantly, not stepwise. Break it I say.

[lucusLoC]

incidentally, and maybe a mod or even toady needs to look at this, but i cannot change the poll at all (i wanted to edit things to be a little more clear, and allow vote changing) anyone with ideas on this?

here is the error:

Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required '/srv/www/www.bay12forums.com/public_html/smf/Themes/core/Poll.template.php' (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /srv/www/www.bay12forums.com/public_html/smf/Themes/darkling/Poll.template.php  on line 5

[Wirevix]

I'm with the majority - right now, with things as they stand, I do not care if save compatibility is broken every other day because my forts don't last very long anyway.  I spend most of my time modding, testing the mod, then dying in fire because I accidentally made plump helmets ignite at 0 degrees or something dumb like that.  If I lose a fort extra quick because I make the decision to update for a bug fix, it really makes no difference to me.  After all, upgrading is 100% voluntary and doesn't even require replacing the old version.

[Footkerchief]

incidentally, and maybe a mod or even toady needs to look at this, but i cannot change the poll at all (i wanted to edit things to be a little more clear, and allow vote changing) anyone with ideas on this?

here is the error:

Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required '/srv/www/www.bay12forums.com/public_html/smf/Themes/core/Poll.template.php' (include_path='.:/usr/share/php:/usr/share/pear') in /srv/www/www.bay12forums.com/public_html/smf/Themes/darkling/Poll.template.php  on line 5

Let them know in this thread.

[monk12]

I'd like to throw my 2 cents into the ring and add that as long as previous versions are still available to download, there is no reason not to press development forward as quickly as Toady wants. My 40d worlds still molder on my hard drive, and I imagine that years from now when the dream of persistent epic worlds is real, I'll still be able to hang onto those worlds to revisit anytime. And if I start playing a succession game, nothing is forcing me to overwrite the game when I get a new version, and the available legacy downloads means that even if I lose everything on my computer and have to start fresh, I can still get at the old info.

As far as the ease of entry to this game, I'd say that the quick, new version releases aren't a huge problem. If the average n00b is anything like me, they'll spend a half dozen forts in the version they first download getting the hang of the new mechanics until their first serious fort crumbles to its end. After that, they'll be in the download/new fort/download cycle the rest of us are in.

Considering the "FASTER DEV PLOX" vote outnumbers every other vote combined, its fairly clear where the community lies on this issue.

[dragon0421]

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

This.

I think the current version makes this clear. It's unplayable for me, and I can't help but wonder if I could be playing a version with the military system and hospitals intact and bug free while I wait for expanded caverns and creatures.

I've taken some intro C++ classes for my engineering degree, and one of the first things they teach is to code incrementally and debug individual parts as you go. It makes finding and fixing bugs 100x easier and more efficient. The current version feels like way too much at once and I can only imagine the nightmare it must be for Toady to fix right now.

[rdwulfe]

I too voted for the first one, especially as DF stands right now. My feelings may change in the future when worldgen makes amazing worlds with armies moving around and a story I care about, but right now? Right now I want things to progress. I'd like to see DF take amazing leaps forward, and Toady not to hold back because he's worried he might upset my world and make me have to regen it. If I like a world, I can regen in a new version. If things changed, and I don't get the exact same world? So be it, I'll get a new, interesting world to do terrible things in.

All in all, forward progress is what's needed most at this stage. Toady, do what you need to do, do what you feel is best, but I'm not going to stop playing just because you've had to remove save compatibility, that's for sure!!!

[GRead]

cons against save compat:
hinders development

Does save compatibility really hinder development? I must confess to not being a programmer (so any programmers go ahead and correct me (viciously if need be)) but I was under the impression that a feature\fix would either break compatibility or not.

[Wirevix]

That's pretty much how it is, GRead - however, because Toady didn't want to break save compatibility very often previously, we ended up with the massive wait time between 40d and .31, and .31 introducing many new systems all at once, all with their own unique problems to then be solved.  If save compatibility was not an issue, new systems could be integrated one at a time over shorter periods.