What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Well I'm cautious now about how quickly I'll accept 4.0 due to the mining adjustments.
I play a game I started from Nov 2018 and I don't do Beta so I've no early personal experience about what to exect of the changes before I update. I'm going to wait and see.
Egosoft did inform early in the Beta process that they would be adjusting respawn rates but not knowing beforehand that aside from adding things to compliement Cradle of Humanity they were also going to work at the foundations of the economy. I don't have any finey tuned factories or manufactuing chains but I do have mobile miners scattered through the 3.30 universe.
Having said that I would not mind seeing a inverse square rule or a sector preference being given to solar so we end up with places like The Wall, Akeelas' Beacon, Empires Edge etc.
I play a game I started from Nov 2018 and I don't do Beta so I've no early personal experience about what to exect of the changes before I update. I'm going to wait and see.
Egosoft did inform early in the Beta process that they would be adjusting respawn rates but not knowing beforehand that aside from adding things to compliement Cradle of Humanity they were also going to work at the foundations of the economy. I don't have any finey tuned factories or manufactuing chains but I do have mobile miners scattered through the 3.30 universe.
Having said that I would not mind seeing a inverse square rule or a sector preference being given to solar so we end up with places like The Wall, Akeelas' Beacon, Empires Edge etc.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
I miss the "Making changes is fine", so I chose the last option..
My games are usually somewhere between 200 and 500 hours (I don't use SETA). Whenever Egosoft releases a new major version I don't even consider using an old save, because I want the full "new shiny version" experience. In X4 this meant at least two new games every major version (due to main story line branches - yes I'm a completionist).
Having said that, I know everyone plays the game differently, so of course having no breaking changes to your old save would be nice. I don't see a problem at all for new features requiring a new save, if technically needed. I think that gives the developer much more freedom.
At my company (software architect for a huge tech company here) we are allowed to introduce breaking changes for major versions. Obviously it is preferred not to do that, but it depends on the amount of resources we have to spend versus the cost of clients having to take care of manual upgrades for the new major (e.g. config, db). This is more or less the industry standard. Personally I think Egosoft already goes beyond this. Considering they are a small company I would prefer their precious dev time to be spent on the features themselves instead, but hey, not my call
My games are usually somewhere between 200 and 500 hours (I don't use SETA). Whenever Egosoft releases a new major version I don't even consider using an old save, because I want the full "new shiny version" experience. In X4 this meant at least two new games every major version (due to main story line branches - yes I'm a completionist).
Having said that, I know everyone plays the game differently, so of course having no breaking changes to your old save would be nice. I don't see a problem at all for new features requiring a new save, if technically needed. I think that gives the developer much more freedom.
At my company (software architect for a huge tech company here) we are allowed to introduce breaking changes for major versions. Obviously it is preferred not to do that, but it depends on the amount of resources we have to spend versus the cost of clients having to take care of manual upgrades for the new major (e.g. config, db). This is more or less the industry standard. Personally I think Egosoft already goes beyond this. Considering they are a small company I would prefer their precious dev time to be spent on the features themselves instead, but hey, not my call
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
+1tybilliontrillionEhli wrote: ↑Mon, 1. Mar 21, 17:39I miss the "Making changes is fine", so I chose the last option..
My games are usually somewhere between 200 and 500 hours (I don't use SETA). Whenever Egosoft releases a new major version I don't even consider using an old save, because I want the full "new shiny version" experience. In X4 this meant at least two new games every major version (due to main story line branches - yes I'm a completionist).
Having said that, I know everyone plays the game differently, so of course having no breaking changes to your old save would be nice. I don't see a problem at all for new features requiring a new save, if technically needed. I think that gives the developer much more freedom.
At my company (software architect for a huge tech company here) we are allowed to introduce breaking changes for major versions. Obviously it is preferred not to do that, but it depends on the amount of resources we have to spend versus the cost of clients having to take care of manual upgrades for the new major (e.g. config, db). This is more or less the industry standard. Personally I think Egosoft already goes beyond this. Considering they are a small company I would prefer their precious dev time to be spent on the features themselves instead, but hey, not my call
If you want a different perspective, stand on your head.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
The last is meant to be a "Just Do It" kind of option, meaning that backwards compatibility should not be a limiting factor in development at all. If something would improve the game greatly but would probably break existing saves, they should just inform people on all channels (in-game pop-ups too maybe?) that they should not update the game if they want to continue their existing saves, and just go ahead with the implementation. To the best of my knowledge nothing like this ever happened in the X franchise, but maybe exactly because of backwards compatibility not allowing it once the game was released.
A great example for changes like this would be Stellaris. The game would be nowhere near it's current state if the developers wouldn't have been allowed to make save braking changes. They even reworked the whole transportation system at one point, creating a completely new (in my opinion much better) gameplay experience. They simply state that save file compatibility between versions is not guaranteed, and that's it.
IMHO X4 would greatly benefit if backwards compatibility was only a nice thing to have but absolutely the lowest priorty, behind any game improving changes.
This is me.Ehli wrote: ↑Mon, 1. Mar 21, 17:39My games are usually somewhere between 200 and 500 hours (I don't use SETA). Whenever Egosoft releases a new major version I don't even consider using an old save, because I want the full "new shiny version" experience. In X4 this meant at least two new games every major version (due to main story line branches - yes I'm a completionist).
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat, 1. Aug 20, 22:40
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Not to change the solar energy stats in the old sectors is really silly. Having to build a couple of new solar power plants to supply your factories in (now) low-sunlight areas is much much less of a hassle than having to revamp one's mining operations.
Please Egosoft, take this poll (and the previous one on much more disruptive mining changes) as encouragement to make the improvements to sun stats across sectors. It would make the game so much more interesting (and consistent across sectors), at a very low cost to players with old saves.
Please Egosoft, take this poll (and the previous one on much more disruptive mining changes) as encouragement to make the improvements to sun stats across sectors. It would make the game so much more interesting (and consistent across sectors), at a very low cost to players with old saves.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
There are multiple methods of "losing backward compatibility". The one least problematic are things that are balancing changes, but ones that could affect savegames. E.g. the Oddy has the same ship complement in its holds as the carrier. All large ships carry 40 small ships inside. Reducing these would carve a niche for ships and could be used to create a niche for a "weaker ship" to be enticing. However, if, say, all traders were given 10 internal docking instead of 40, what would a savegame that had 40 ships docked at an Incarcatua do? Would the ships be kicked out? Would they go out but not be able to dock? Would they be destroyed because the code ignored illegal entries? These would affect a savegame, but in a way that merely provides an annoyance on changing. Theoretically, this could be a change that could happen at any time and "be acceptable".
Another "losing savegame compatibility" is where the game could fail to stabilise, or collapse. If, for example, hull parts were changed to add plastics to the list, allowing a different, robust economy where the prices of some things could change without causing runaway inflation, a 1000 hour old savegame would be unusable because the saved universe would not be able to correct. By the time the economy started to react, it would be unable to build anything because hull parts are now out of the market. Such a change would invalidate savegames.
A third category would be something that changes the basis of the code, for a change that is desired, but whose implementation would be "I wouldn't start with THIS codebase if I wanted to do that", where the savegame is just plain incompatible.
However, in all cases, it would be work to do, either from the programmers who have to test this all and inform users of the risks, the customers who now have to be careful, or both. This would require that
a) there be few such breaks
b) that there be as much a gain from what is included that the break is worth putting up with
therefore it would have to be after a whole slew of such changes are definitely going to be applied, and accepted by customers, are all available at the same time, meaning a long lead-up time.
Also, IIRC for any Steam game, you can go into the "Files" section and as well as signing up for a Beta, you can find the history of the code uploads, and select the specific version from the past. So if you have a savegame you really want, you can set your version from Steam to the last one it worked for.
Another "losing savegame compatibility" is where the game could fail to stabilise, or collapse. If, for example, hull parts were changed to add plastics to the list, allowing a different, robust economy where the prices of some things could change without causing runaway inflation, a 1000 hour old savegame would be unusable because the saved universe would not be able to correct. By the time the economy started to react, it would be unable to build anything because hull parts are now out of the market. Such a change would invalidate savegames.
A third category would be something that changes the basis of the code, for a change that is desired, but whose implementation would be "I wouldn't start with THIS codebase if I wanted to do that", where the savegame is just plain incompatible.
However, in all cases, it would be work to do, either from the programmers who have to test this all and inform users of the risks, the customers who now have to be careful, or both. This would require that
a) there be few such breaks
b) that there be as much a gain from what is included that the break is worth putting up with
therefore it would have to be after a whole slew of such changes are definitely going to be applied, and accepted by customers, are all available at the same time, meaning a long lead-up time.
Also, IIRC for any Steam game, you can go into the "Files" section and as well as signing up for a Beta, you can find the history of the code uploads, and select the specific version from the past. So if you have a savegame you really want, you can set your version from Steam to the last one it worked for.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
So after a week and 63 votes, I'd like to summarize the results, before this topic gets buried. Although I know that these 63 people are not representative of the whole player base, I think this result should still make Egosoft think about the topic. Out of 63 people 59 think that changes that may unbalance existing saves should not hinder development at all. And although to the best of my knowledge no such changes were introduced to previous X games ever, it seems that people would be okay with drastic changes too that would require a new game if that would mean greatly improving certain aspects of the game.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Not sure how you got to this conclusion tbh and its not even the main concern I read. Most of the time the difference in opinion around improvements are about the definition of what constitutes "great improvement" and what "certain aspects of the game" means to each, more often then not, it means something different.
Still interesting that most are open to changes.
MFG
Ketraar
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Id be ok with new stuff and lose save games when new major updates come with a dlc pack thats substantial. So once a year kinda thing. You always have the opportunity to prevent updates and use a no steam exe from their website incase you want to just stick with a old game, plus you can backup ur x folder and play older games on that and a different x4 folder fore newer stuff, tho ud need to swap save game folders with that method id imagine.
-
- Posts: 4047
- Joined: Tue, 31. Aug 04, 15:31
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
I think it also depends on what kind of changes we are talking about.
3 points just come together here:
1. different light intensity in the sectors belongs to the X basics and has always been so, so is simply missing in X4.
2. this change would rather not have a destructive impact on old save games. Because you only have to add a few solar panels here and there and the problem would be solved.
3. the balancing changes to the economy alone have more impact than Bernd's light example.
I can't think of anything that could really destroy old saves. Changes to the universe, complete relocation of resources. But even that would still be manageable in certain parts. A savegame is only really broken when it can no longer be loaded. Or am I missing a weighty example here?
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
I guess this too depends and varies from player to player. If I have set up a huge trade empire and have several hundred stations/ships then the universe suddenly changing forcing people to adjust, will be met with various degrees of "enthusiasm". If the changes result in better gameplay experience will be just as debatable and have probably as many opinions as there are players.Bastelfred wrote: ↑Mon, 8. Mar 21, 10:59I can't think of anything that could really destroy old saves. Changes to the universe, complete relocation of resources. But even that would still be manageable in certain parts. A savegame is only really broken when it can no longer be loaded. Or am I missing a weighty example here?
I know my personal preference, as I usually prefer any gain in depth/nuance even if inconvenient, but that is indeed just one opinion.
MFG
Ketraar
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
I'm fine if Egosoft will introduce Sun Light changes to the game. (Maybe we can test it after 4.0 release and Devs can gather feedback and data before fully pushing it, but I believe this change is highly needed) there is no point introducing this feature in DLC sectors and hide it from rest of the game.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
IMO the best approach would be to do the final DLC3 to X4 by adding Borons.
Then call X4 done and make equivalent of X3:TC/AP, so new stand alone game that would be X4, but with major mechanics and rebalance changes.
Then call X4 done and make equivalent of X3:TC/AP, so new stand alone game that would be X4, but with major mechanics and rebalance changes.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
The only interesting about this is it's meaning. Most are not satisfied with what they got out of the box and would rather bin some 100's (or even 1,000s) of hours...
Either you people got something very wrong and should seriously reconsider many aspects of the game or just go on with what you have planned and see where it leads you without bothering yourselves (and us) with 12 pages long discussions that lead nowhere since consensus can never be found...
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Now that's a good idea...
EDIT: But then X4:TC/AP would have no DLC's (maybe this means a "outdated" game in our times?)....
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Egosoft have always evdeavoured to keep save compatibility, but I don't mind if it's a rule they have to break. The model has changed since X3; instead of the iterative drops of TC and AP we have paid expansions. This makes it less desirable to have to start from scratch on a new entry that may otherwise have allowed big changes to the code. Sure, updates like Reunion 2.0 might have been save compatible, but it's not like you could transfer a Reunion save to Terran Conflict or a TC save to Albion Prelude, even though AP is a de facto DLC for TC.
The aim seems to be to support X4 Foundations for a long time. With Split Vendetta and Cradle of Humanity, that's a model a lot of players have bought into. With that in mind I hope Egosoft feel they can at some point make more significant changes, like they did between X3 entries, that would require a new save if it means major improvements to the game. It's clear that they respect the time people invest into it, but I hope that doesn't mean they'll hold back on opportunities to make it better.
The aim seems to be to support X4 Foundations for a long time. With Split Vendetta and Cradle of Humanity, that's a model a lot of players have bought into. With that in mind I hope Egosoft feel they can at some point make more significant changes, like they did between X3 entries, that would require a new save if it means major improvements to the game. It's clear that they respect the time people invest into it, but I hope that doesn't mean they'll hold back on opportunities to make it better.
~ Experienced X3 veteran. Dangerously incompetent X4 novice. ~
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Yeah, everything including the Borons has my vote as well
Spoiler
Show
BurnIt: Boron and leaks don't go well together...
Königinnenreich von Boron: Sprich mit deinem Flossenführer
Nila Ti: Folgt mir, ihr Kavalkade von neugierigen Kreaturen!
Pick yourpoison seed [for custom gamestarts]
Feature request: paint jobs on custom starts
Königinnenreich von Boron: Sprich mit deinem Flossenführer
Nila Ti: Folgt mir, ihr Kavalkade von neugierigen Kreaturen!
Pick your
Feature request: paint jobs on custom starts
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
Well, in hindsight maybe I could have worded the last option a bit better, but in the context of the other options and the poll/topic being about backwards compatibility, I think its clear what it means: if there is something that you think would make the game better, like the solar power adjustments we heard about, than backwards compatibility should not be a blocker for that. And most people voted for this, that's how I came to that conclusion.Ketraar wrote: ↑Mon, 8. Mar 21, 10:39Not sure how you got to this conclusion tbh and its not even the main concern I read. Most of the time the difference in opinion around improvements are about the definition of what constitutes "great improvement" and what "certain aspects of the game" means to each, more often then not, it means something different.
Still interesting that most are open to changes.
MFG
Ketraar
Currently Steam allows me to play with 4 versions (the latest beta, 3.3 hf 2, 3.3 and 3.2). So players could be notified that you cannot guarantee that their Universes won't be royally ****** by the new version, and that's it. They can then choose to update or stay on one of the older versions of the game.
I would call this a win-win situation. Players can continue with or without updating, and the game can advance/evolve/develop.
What we currently have, is a lose-lose situation. Players are complaining about balance and variety since the release of the game, but e.g. a long awaited ship stat rebalance would seriously disturb existing saves, so changes like this are apparently very unlikely to happen at the moment I guess, and players either make peace with the placeholder stats in the original game, or they install mods.
Being so dedicated to backwards compatibility is very commendable, but I also never came across another single player game that prioritized it above improvements.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
The topic is backwards compatibility. The majority voted that Egosoft is free to do whatever they please.Pares wrote: ↑Thu, 11. Mar 21, 17:17Well, in hindsight maybe I could have worded the last option a bit better, but in the context of the other options and the poll/topic being about backwards compatibility, I think its clear what it means: if there is something that you think would make the game better, like the solar power adjustments we heard about, than backwards compatibility should not be a blocker for that. And most people voted for this, that's how I came to that conclusion.
It is your assumption that "in the best interest of their game" means "improve the game greatly".
Could be true. Could be false.
Lets say that there is a popular feature, but technically it blocks addition of another feature. The other feature would not become as popular, but is artistically satisfying (to developers) and allows further features that potentially could become popular. Axing the popular feature would not improve the game at all in the short run, but would be in best interest in long run. Majority of voters is willing to face such changes without a warning ...
Wording of polls is crucial. It can affect the result.
Goner Pancake Protector X
Insanity included at no extra charge.
There is no Box. I am the sand.
Insanity included at no extra charge.
There is no Box. I am the sand.
Re: What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?
I don't know how difficult it would be to implement, but couldn't there just be a trigger in the code somewhere that says this is not a new game, so no changes will happen, or this is a new game, changes will automatically be apllied. Except for beta players, who due to opting into the beta, get the changes into existing games.
That way they can make the game the way they see it, and it won't affect anyone who doesn't want to start a new game.
That way they can make the game the way they see it, and it won't affect anyone who doesn't want to start a new game.
I aim to misbehave...
Maybe we've got 'em demoralised!
Guide on How to Steal Blueprints
Guide - Raw Resource Trading Post
How I completed each Terraforming project
Maybe we've got 'em demoralised!
Guide on How to Steal Blueprints
Guide - Raw Resource Trading Post
How I completed each Terraforming project