July Update.

[Fuarian]

When will there be a new build for TLD this month.

I believe there is an update each month.

If there is will it be available for Xbox aswell. At the same time or sometime later?

Thanks.

[octavian]

If it were pushed back I think they would have said something by now.

And yes, the next update on Xbox and PC versions will be identical and in-sync, due to the way Unity works.

[bethany]

We tend to release our monthly updates towards the end of the month.

We will do our best to release the update simultaneously for XBox and Steam. For XBox, the update itself must first be certified by Microsoft before release, so the syncing and distribution of the updates in this sense has nothing to do with Unity itself. Please be careful about passing that sort of information =)

[octavian]

Whoops :oops:

[bethany]

No worries at all. Just want everyone to have the right information!

[Anelyn]

No worries at all. Just want everyone to have the right information!

And more matches! hehehe! Thanks bethany for the information, looking forward to the update!

PS: If somehow I manage to not die in current playthrough until patch hits, will I be able to continue this session or the save will become obsolete / deleted? - no am not hibernating, still going strong exploring and risking her life every step!

[EatenByWolves]

No worries at all. Just want everyone to have the right information!

And more matches! hehehe! Thanks bethany for the information, looking forward to the update!

PS: If somehow I manage to not die in current playthrough until patch hits, will I be able to continue this session or the save will become obsolete / deleted? - no am not hibernating, still going strong exploring and risking her life every step!

I was able to continue through a patch on the same play through, the only thing i noticed is that if they change loot variables for buildings, it deposits a little stockpile of items in that building in a random location, like the quonset gas station etc. That is the conclusion I have made, but i don't know/think it is intended... But to directly answer, you will not need to restart, and it won't affect your current play through very much if at all.

[Bill Tarling]

If somehow I manage to not die in current playthrough until patch hits, will I be able to continue this session or the save will become obsolete / deleted? - no am not hibernating, still going strong exploring and risking her life every step!

I was able to continue through a patch on the same play through, the only thing i noticed is that if they change loot variables for buildings, it deposits a little stockpile of items in that building in a random location, like the quonset gas station etc. That is the conclusion I have made, but i don't know/think it is intended... But to directly answer, you will not need to restart, and it won't affect your current play through very much if at all.

Personally this has always been a bit of a sore spot with me... hate seeing development time being used up to hotfix previous older alpha versions so that they're backwards compatible. Last time just having to adjust the geometry so old loot storage could still work created a lot more gap and bug areas in the updated version that was working relatively cleanly.

While I understand players don't want to give up their "long run" (especially given that it usually has easier settings), and I know the devs are doing their best to keep everyone happy -- but I don't really agree with the time required because it also requires more and more dev time just to hotfix compatibility issues for saves that will only be good for a single outdated run.

Players also don't necessarily get all the new additions or settings because not all code variables and values are the same any more (which then requires either more hotfixes, or keeping old variables and ignoring their updated replacement).

With story mode due to start near the end of the year, I (personal opinion only) would prefer the devs to be able to use the extra time by fixing bugs in the major updates and working towards the new material, rather than using programming time to make a fix for backward version compatibility which is then voided once the player dies.

It's alpha - we should be required to expect a fresh start with each major update [where all the new stuff is]... Just as with one of the first major updates, players were told they had about two weeks to get in their long run before they would need to start a fresh with in order to get all the new stuff.

If they wanted to continue their long run, they simply had to turn off the updates... it meant they wouldn't get all the new stuff, but it let them finish things at their own pace. There are still players sending in bug reports because the last update wasn't working right with the version they started back in v.152 (when Coastal Highway was first introduced).

The game may look like it works fully with new major updates, but it's often incomplete...

Examples:

• when burned buildings were introduced, they never appeared using the previous major version saves because the old save data said there was no such thing (all the buildings spawned normally)

• when bears were added to the ML map, many players never had them because the old save meant there was no spawn point

• loot is often screwed up using old versions because things have been moved, landscape changed or adjusted, new loot spawns added (which can't always be accessed since old saves already have all the previous loot locations tracked), some old loot levels have been reduced (but players keep their stockpiles based on old exploits or settings), etc. etc. etc.

For Hotfixes (for new version bugs) I have no problem with using the most recent major update version for compatibility [as long as it doesn't break or create a slew of new bugs to fix] -- but I feel that each new MAJOR update should require a fresh start for everyone [or they shouldn't update to the newer version]

• that way bug reports are based on the most recent clean version (not backward compatibility with outdated/replaced versions

• feedback responses are all based on the exact same version (not some new versions, some with parts of the last major update, and some with versions from last year)

• it's alpha - and we want the main story part just ahead - running a clean version means the devs have time to make more adjustments, and add new stuff in order to get us to the story mode and final releases... time isn't being used to make fixes only good for a single run (once the player dies)

• the more time they have to focus on tweaks and new stuff (rather than old version fixes), the better the chance we'll have a couple of extra little goodies by release time near the end of the year

In order to get to the point of Story Mode release as quickly and smoothly as possible [we all are anxious for it], we need to be willing to just expect each run to only be good for about a month or so before the next major update will have us start again. Every major update [and you know the studio is pretty consistent in releasing them regularly] has a big change in feel and the way things can be played - we should be looking forward to that since it also means we're one step closer to the big release.

I know people want to keep their leaderboard runs, but I still say then turn off the Steam autoupdate until you've finished with that run... Major Update Releases should expect a fresh run to try out all the new changes.

[ChillPlayer]

@Bill: completely with you on this. It is still alpha, one can't expect it won't change (and thuss ultimately require a restart). If this will happen often in the final release I would understand the complaints and reluctancy to start over. But the main goal of an alpha version as I see it is to give feedback to the devs and let them improve the game step by step.

Only there seldom was an alpha so playable and stable as TLD, which is why people might confuse it for a finished game.

[Majales]

@Bill: Definitelly. I'm doing this most of the time. When new major update is announced, then I'm starting new game.

[harobed1156]

Personally this has always been a bit of a sore spot with me... hate seeing development time being used up to hotfix previous older alpha versions so that they're backwards compatible.

+1

[Random Fires]

Personally this has always been a bit of a sore spot with me... hate seeing development time being used up to hotfix previous older alpha versions so that they're backwards compatible.

+1

+2

Having played minecraft, (I know many hate the comparison) it seems reasonable to reset for some features being alpha. I'd just naturally reset to get a full picture of changes. It is possible however, taking time now to tackle compatibity issues in alpha will reduce issues beta and beyond.

[elloco999]

I'm with Bill on this one too. The time it takes to keep each new update compatible with old savegames is better spent on new stuff (mechanics, content and story mode etc). If you really want to continue your run when a new update is released, you can just turn of the updates.

Of course, new updates would have to be announced in time, so people can turn the updates off before it is released, or else Steam may well update TLD before people have the opportunity to turn the updates off. Steam will start updating all games that have updates as soon as it starts and many people have Steam set to start when Windows starts. That doesn't leave a lot of time to turn of updates...

[Spottdrossel]

The list of things that could be "skipped" to have more "programming time" ("programming time" in a project of this magnitude should be around a third or less of the total effort) is probably very long.

Less interviews, less dev blogs, less writing, less reading, less goofing off, ...

This is all part of the show. Going into early access means you have to deliver something for your audience to keep them engaged, to keep them coming back, to keep telling other people to join the ride.

If anyone actually thinks crashing the players progress every month is something he/she should do, I would question that person's decision to start such a project.

If maintaining backwards compatibility actually causes a problem and introduces bugs, I'm afraid the developer is to blame. After all no one else could be responsible for the code that exists.

[octavian]

Perhaps the studio feels that a fraction of the players who would need to restart would no longer play the game if they needed to do it, at least for a while, seeing how so much of the focus is on the number of days you survive, number seemingly more important for some than a new gameplay mechanic like bows.

[ChillPlayer]

If maintaining backwards compatibility actually causes a problem and introduces bugs, I'm afraid the developer is to blame. After all no one else could be responsible for the code that exists.

you're missing the point, there's no one to blame for anything. The question simply is: should the devs dedicate some of their time and ressources to make backward compatibility fixes or should they just focus on adding new stuff while having in mind that players might need to start over to get all new additions. The majority of people seem to prefere the latter.

Bill posted some examples why it's not possible to just add new stuff without adding fixes that modify old saves. If the size of a container gets smaller in a new version this new size has to be applied somehow to old saves and then "some" logic has to decide what todo with stuff that doesn't fit in anymore. It's not undoable, question is only, should they do it.

[elloco999]

The list of things that could be "skipped" to have more "programming time" ("programming time" in a project of this magnitude should be around a third or less of the total effort) is probably very long.

Less interviews, less dev blogs, less writing, less reading, less goofing off, ...

Yes, and no...

The programmers don't really do much interviews, nor have I seem many dev blogs or read many articles by them. So I don't think that would make much of a difference. As for goofing off, that's actually good for productivity. You can't spend all your time with your mind deep in the code.

This is all part of the show. Going into early access means you have to deliver something for your audience to keep them engaged, to keep them coming back, to keep telling other people to join the ride.

If anyone actually thinks crashing the players progress every month is something he/she should do, I would question that person's decision to start such a project.

You're partly right on this, but it's not like there is no way around that for players who don't want their progress crashed.

If maintaining backwards compatibility actually causes a problem and introduces bugs, I'm afraid the developer is to blame. After all no one else could be responsible for the code that exists.

Sometimes it is just not possible to fix problems or add new content without doing extensive work to make sure old savegames will still work after the update. And yes, that is the developers problem and responsibility, but that doesn't mean it's not a waste of time to spend a week just to make sure a new feature is compatible with savegames from almost 100 versions ago that are almost 8 months old.

Not to mention the time wasted (not just the devs' time either) from bugs reported on old versions that have long since been fixed or are not an issue in the current version of the game.

While I agree that some effort should be taken to minimize the impact on the players, that also needs to be balanced against the time needed to do so.

[harobed1156]

Bill posted some examples why it's not possible to just add new stuff without adding fixes that modify old saves. If the size of a container gets smaller in a new version this new size has to be applied somehow to old saves and then "some" logic has to decide what todo with stuff that doesn't fit in anymore. It's not undoable, question is only, should they do it.

Exactly. Since I know nothing about coding, I wonder if such fixes add unnecessary bloat, so that over the course of development you end up with a lot of junk that no longer serves any useful purpose in the final release.

[ChillPlayer]

Not only this, those fixes have to be made compatible with new fixes as well, it's a never ending story once you go down this road. A clean cut is better for everyone, the code, the devs and ultimately the player.

BTW: can anyone tell me how to disable automatic patching in steam lol? I don't want to screw up my current run and I checked the options (right click on TLD in steam -> properties -> updates) but I can't disable the updates, only choose to do them only when I startup the game instead of automatic - will I have then the option to skip the update?

[harobed1156]

You can't disable game updates in Steam. If you check the discussion boards there, you'll find there are a lot of complaints about that, but Steam doesn't appear to be interested in changing their policy. This has to do with security patches, having all multiplayer gamers on the same version, and avoiding having their forums clogged with bug reports from outdated software.

[Bill Tarling]

You can't disable game updates in Steam. If you check the discussion boards there, you'll find there are a lot of complaints about that, but Steam doesn't appear to be interested in changing their policy. This has to do with security patches, having all multiplayer gamers on the same version, and avoiding having their forums clogged with bug reports from outdated software.

Good point - and my mistake in saying Turn Off Updates. Early on, there had been a way to turn off updates [i only had to do it with one game], but I guess it was removed unfortunately. I'm expecting reverting back to previous versions is still available, but haven't checked lately to see if that's been removed from Steam too).

I've got some games which I rarely play (but don't want to completely uninstall quite yet) like The Forest . there's an update needed to play through Steam, but I simply stopped/paused the update and removed it from the queue (because I don't really need to use the bandwidth for every game) - can still play the un-updated version by running it directly [offline] rather than loading the game through Steam. I do that for a few games simply because there are times when I have to run extra security firewalls when working on other tasks in the background, and I don't want to set up separate whitelists just for Steam to run.

[SteveP]

Sounds like you are in-house Bill, to have all these interesting tid-bits!

I can understand the concerns about developer time spent supporting back releases; someone has to balance costs. I anticipated (and dreaded) the need for restarts due to compatibility issues but just wish we had more clarity about when they are necessary. Some very severe problems I'd had completely disappeared after I did a restart; remember the game crashing with rendering problems?

By offloading alpha testing to the user community, you end up saving costs on testing. You get more random testing yet functional testing or coverage testing might be neglected since player testing is completely ad-hoc.

I don't think you can do without in house testing completely; you still need the build smoke test and some type of automated, fit for purpose, release testing. There are compromises with every development paradigm but I do like this approach as it gives much greater player feedback during early development!

Steve

[Bill Tarling]

In case some people were wondering if I was exaggerating about players using really old save files so they can use settings from the easier versions long ago: http://steamcommunity.com/app/305620/di ... 785139/#p2

Even players still using save versions from before Dec 2014 - so how long are the devs supposed to keep spending the bug fixing time needed to keep those versions from last year compatible with new updates?

You can't even tell anymore when people complain about settings which version they're still running... just because they have the latest update, that doesn't mean they're playing the same version as a fresh run because their save version may work, but uses different data/settings so it doesn't break.

We all signed on for alpha with the full understanding changes could/would interrupt our games... New Major Update should require Fresh Run if you want real feedback

[octavian]

New Major Update should require Fresh Run if you want real feedback

Then why not just put a disclaimer out and make all save files incompatible with new updates, if it's such a big issue?

[elloco999]

New Major Update should require Fresh Run if you want real feedback

Then why not just put a disclaimer out and make all save files incompatible with new updates, if it's such a big issue?

I think that's exactly what Bill is advocating. Or at least to not keep working on fixing issues with old savegames. There are also many issues that may be annoying but are not so serious that you can't continue playing. So maybe it's not necessary to invalidate the saves with every major update (although it may be a good idea to do so every so many major updates), but let people know that old saves are not supported and therefor no time will be spend trying to fix issues with them.

Even players still using save versions from before Dec 2014 - so how long are the devs supposed to keep spending the bug fixing time needed to keep those versions from last year compatible with new updates?

I'd say support one maybe two old major versions. They could do it this way:

- On a new major release the devs test old savegames (from say one or two previous major versions) and do their best to keep them working okay before the update is released. (They do this already)

- After the release they spend a few days fixing the major issues that arise, including those due to old savegames. (They do this already)

- Once the hotfixes are done, if bugs are reported they will only get fixed if they can be reproduced in a new save or using saves from the previous major version.

And / or possibly every 3-4 major versions or so, simply invalidate old saves so you never get situations where saves are more than a half year old.

Either way, create a policy and make it clear to the players. That way everybody knows what they're in for.