What is your opinion on backwards compatibility?

[Pares]

Since the poll about the mining changes, and the recent interview with Bernd, where he mentioned the potential solar power changes, I was wondering about how the community feels about save backwards compatibility.

To be honest I'm really annoyed when I read or hear that something was not introduced to the game because it would unbalance the economy and/or the power balance in existing saves.

And since to the best of my knowledge Egosoft never asked the community about this, and proactively made all their updates as backwards compatible as possible (who knows how many ideas for improvements are sitting in the backlog just because they are too "disruptive" to existing saves), I thought I make a poll about it.

[chew-ie]

Just do it to bring X4 to the next level. Those who want to stick to older versions can do so (at least @GOG you can choose which version to play)

[Axeface]

Its only polite to ask the community about changes that will effect existing savegames, but I think egosoft should always do what is best for he future experience - if something makes the game much better they should do it.

Perhaps steams versioning system can be used to allow people to revert to older versions if they want?

Also, could some big changes be made to only effect new games?

[The Q]

I don't think Egosoft needs to change anything in their backwards compatibility policy. If it's not common practice, and it case of X Games it never has been, requiring a new game start is always a bad idea. No matter how good you communicate it, a large amount of players will miss this information and then complain. Also more generally speaking in a game where your aim is to build a huge empire, forced restarts are a not a good idea. As for balancing changes, rather than polls I take the existing public betas where people can see how the changes work in the game and give their feedback according to that. A poll in the open forum can support these balancing decisions. But in my opinion it should never be the only source of feedback.

Perhaps steams versioning system can be used to allow people to revert to older versions if they want?

I was under the impression that you can already do that through the betas tab!?

Also, could some big changes be made to only effect new games?

What qualifies as a big change?

[dtpsprt]

Just do it to bring X4 to the next level. Those who want to stick to older versions can do so (at least @GOG you can choose which version to play)

So... is GOG having the load of players/customers or is it STEAM that such a thing is not an option?

Besides, that's not the point because along with these game changing/racking changes there surely be other game improvements and also fixes (piloting AI for one).

[dtpsprt]

Its only polite to ask the community about changes that will effect existing savegames, but I think egosoft should always do what is best for he future experience - if something makes the game much better they should do it.

Perhaps steams versioning system can be used to allow people to revert to older versions if they want?

Also, could some big changes be made to only effect new games?

1. Asking not only polite, it is also a "feature" that improves Egosoft's image and player base... On that note it would be way better if such changes were part or consisted a DLC for those who want them. Afterall (and we better not forget that) it is a single player game so there is no concept of "fairness" in it...

2. One can not seriously force/make Steam or any other big distribution company rethink/revise their way of doing things. Not except they represent more than, maybe, 30-50% of their game income (seriously doubt if there is such a company).

3. That would be "unfair" for those with big (in terms of time at least) saves... but this brings us back to my proposition that such changes should be in DLC's for anyone to choose to apply them or not while everyone should be able to take advantage of changes improving things (pilot AI, maybe faster saving/game overall behaviour, fixing crashes etc).

[jlehtone]

Those who want to stick to older versions can do so

Support policy? Do you expect support for multiple versions or only for the latest release?

[Hero77]

I think Ego should decide on their own, as they always have. Regarding Bernds recent example with the solar power, from my pov they are too cautious with it. I think some of their others changes (like the changes to mining) have bigger impacts anyhow.

Not a big fan of the idea of surverying the community because it seems like a very elaborate and time intensive excercise, if they wanted to make sure all of their players get a vote and not only specifc subgroups of players (for example the ones that read the ego forum). Also they would need to invest time into explaining in detail what they are considering to do and what impact it may or may not have. From my POV this time could be better spent doing others things.

[Bastelfred]

To be honest I'm really annoyed when I read or hear that something was not introduced to the game because it would unbalance the economy and/or the power balance in existing saves.

For me, this is more of an excuse....
A switch in the game options, Old System / New System. So everyone with an old savegame can decide what he wants, he wants to change his economy to the new system or not.

X4 it wouldn't hurt to have a few more switches.... you could do that for every new system. After all, the old systems aren't systems at all. They are just fixed numbers that are now being replaced with a system.

[Alan Phipps]

Egosoft currently have to support two game versions at the same time - release and beta.

Give one old/new system option and that would be four versions to support - then give just one further old/new system option and the versions increase to eight. Each version has to be supported and balanced separately. That is why new/old system options will not be a thing and instead Egosoft will decide what to change or not for everyone (in my personal opinion of course).

[Bastelfred]

Egosoft currently have to support two game versions at the same time - release and beta.

Give one old/new system option and that would be four versions to support - then give just one further old/new system option and the versions increase to eight. Each version has to be supported and balanced separately. That is why new/old system options will not be a thing and instead Egosoft will decide what to change or not for everyone (in my personal opinion of course).

Yes, that's probably not how it works... there remain two systems where one system is not one. That will not magically become several...
In addition, two numerical values, between which you can choose by switch, are not a system with which Egosoft gets problems.
As said a excuse...

[Alan Phipps]

No, not an excuse.

Even the release version, which you would seem to treat as if immutable, will eventually have those options available and then players will indeed play using them, or not, in combination. If they encounter gameplay or balance issues (possibly even game-breaking) then they will seek support or complain loudly here. Hence the devs would have to understand the gameplay dynamics of every permutation possible.

[Slashman]

Yeah introducing more choices is bad. Especially when it comes to game balance and fine tuning the simulation.

IMHO Egosoft should just go ahead and implement changes that are embraced by the community. Especially if they correct imbalances in the game play and lead to more emergent and dynamic gameplay overall.

Also I think that it is wrong to think of single player games as having no need for balance...if a game is seen to be badly balanced and has illogical gameplay mechanisms which give a certain play style more play because it is easier and it doesn't make sense to do anything else, that basically sends a message that this is how the game is meant to be played.

No developer has ever let balance go out the window in a single player game where it it was preventable. And you can clearly see this with how developers are constantly adjusting the values and behaviors of game entities and mechanics. It is a tricky tightrope to walk but one I think is basically always worth it, even when it hurts my playstyle, and should not be a second thought.

In any case, I think that definitely the solar intensity and other such things that affect gameplay should be tweaked sooner rather than later...this includes ship stats. So I'm all for Egosoft having a go at it.

[Bastelfred]

No, not an excuse.

Even the release version, which you would seem to treat as if immutable, will eventually have those options available and then players will indeed play using them, or not. If they encounter gameplay or balance issues (possibly even game-breaking) then they will seek support or complain loudly here. Hence the devs would have to understand the gameplay dynamics of every permutation possible.

Gamebreaking in a system that has been in the game for 2 years? I don't think so!
We're talking about two numerical values here, numerical values that you could also randomly dice every time you start the game.
Everything that is in the game up to 3.3 is in the game because it is maximally stable. The only thing that could cause problems would be the new system. The old system has not been touched in 2 years, and will not need to be touched for the next 100 years.

Where do you see a critical point? What could happen if you have a save game where every sector is 100% light?

[Jeraal]

I wouldn't mind seeing the SPP's go the way of the dodo. Would prefer some sort of fusion cell, or completely made up sci-fi, replacement for solar power cells. Incompatible with old saves? Okay. I like starting fresh every once in a while. Restricting themselves because it might inconvenience some is a bad idea. At the end of the day, it is just a game. A fun game, but still a game.

[Harrison_rus]

Not sure which variant is better (I choose 4).

Yeah this idea with solar power very good. I'd like to see it. And also I want to see any other new features which may break the old saves.
Maybe it will be little egoistic but I not think that a lot of players have giga-empiries which can fall after strong economy changes..

[Bastelfred]

I wouldn't mind seeing the SPP's go the way of the dodo. Would prefer some sort of fusion cell, or completely made up sci-fi, replacement for solar power cells. Incompatible with old saves? Okay. I like starting fresh every once in a while. Restricting themselves because it might inconvenience some is a bad idea. At the end of the day, it is just a game. A fun game, but still a game.

There is a part of the players who play their save since 1.0. It is just X. You can't say "now you have to start over".

[jlehtone]

There is a part of the players who play their scores since 1.0. It is just X. You can't say "now you have to start over".

You can say: "Here is completely new game. You can't load saves of previous games into it."
(I have faint recollection of some RPG?? game serie, where you actually could import into sequel. Or was it a mod to recreate X3TC empire in X3AP?)

[Bastelfred]

There is a part of the players who play their scores since 1.0. It is just X. You can't say "now you have to start over".

You can say: "Here is completely new game. You can't load saves of previous games into it."

Oh yeah and then 1/3 of the users are at Egosoft's door with torches and pitchforks....
This is a minefield, Ego is careful with it for a reason.

[Rastuasi]

(I have faint recollection of some RPG?? game serie, where you actually could import into sequel. )

Correct, one such game was the Golden Sun series on the Gameboy Advance, you could import the first game's save into the second game and it would allow you to have certain things and change others based on what you did in the first one.