V2.5+ Survival Revival Dev Diary

Riamus said:
Yet if we are going to start seeing more "major" versions, then that suggests minor updates that may not risk compatibility issues make be labeled as a major update, causing confusion.
Click to expand...

I read it that new features will be introduced much faster into the game. You probably will not see many pure bug fix releases anymore but major updates coming every (???) 3 to 6 months, with fewer features naturally (2.6 may be a good example of what to expect).

We'll have to see if they can actually do that like advertised, but if they can do it, players on console with a desire to play a world for a longer time will probably go ballistic ;) . For most players it will be a good change as they want "new stuff" and new POI as fast as possible, more similar to a service game
 
meganoth said:
I read it that new features will be introduced much faster into the game. You probably will not see many pure bug fix releases anymore but major updates coming every (???) 3 to 6 months, with fewer features naturally (2.6 may be a good example of what to expect).

We'll have to see if they can actually do that like advertised, but if they can do it, players on console with a desire to play a world for a longer time will probably go ballistic ;) . For most players it will be a good change as they want "new stuff" and new POI as fast as possible, more similar to a service game
Click to expand...
And yet what planned new features really deserve a major update version? Bandits and Story/Gold. 3.0 and 4.0. Chicken coops don't need more than a minor version. Bug fixes or adjustments to how things work don't. 2.6 doesn't really have anything that would deserve a major version either. Just because there are many things in the update doesn't make it qualify as a major update. And if you are going to have more frequent updates, those should be minor updates. You do need to go gold at version 10.0. But whatever. As I said, they already messed up version numbers so much that people routinely comment (still) on why the game isn't finished if it's labeled as being finished (post 1.0). Regardless what some people think about what version numbers mean, there are many people who have a set view on what they mean and it just causes confusion. But now that they've already messed up version numbers, they can continue to mess them up further and it isn't going to really matter. They'll just have outcries from people when 3.0 isn't bandits. Or when 4.0 isn't the story and actual gold version. It's simply bad PR.
 
Riamus said:
And yet what planned new features really deserve a major update version? Bandits and Story/Gold. 3.0 and 4.0. Chicken coops don't need more than a minor version. Bug fixes or adjustments to how things work don't. 2.6 doesn't really have anything that would deserve a major version either. Just because there are many things in the update doesn't make it qualify as a major update. And if you are going to have more frequent updates, those should be minor updates. You do need to go gold at version 10.0. But whatever. As I said, they already messed up version numbers so much that people routinely comment (still) on why the game isn't finished if it's labeled as being finished (post 1.0). Regardless what some people think about what version numbers mean, there are many people who have a set view on what they mean and it just causes confusion. But now that they've already messed up version numbers, they can continue to mess them up further and it isn't going to really matter. They'll just have outcries from people when 3.0 isn't bandits. Or when 4.0 isn't the story and actual gold version. It's simply bad PR.
Click to expand...

How do you define "deserve" here? According to some personal importance measure or history of numbering in 7d2d EA before? You seem to fear change as much as those other people you mention.
 
meganoth said:
How do you define "deserve" here? According to some personal importance measure or history of numbering in 7d2d EA before? You seem to fear change as much as those other people you mention.
Click to expand...
If you define major and minor, what do you think fits a major update? Does adding something like a chicken coop actually qualify as a major update? Does it significantly change the game in some way? I see it as just a minor addition to the game. Do you see any known features coming besides bandits and the story/gold levels that are actually major changes to the game? If so, I'd be interested in seeing what you think is major. Having even 100 bug fixes in an update is still just a bug fix update rather than a major update. Changing something like needing empty jars for a dew collector isn't major even if it might feel like it to those of us who don't like the idea. *Maybe* I can consider the options version to be a major update, depending on what kinds of options they actually add and if they are significant or not. But I can't think of anything else that could qualify. If you can, I'm interested in hearing what they are.

And if we are just talking about the options update, what is better for PR? Making options 3.0 when they have been telling people for years that 3.0 is bandits after pushing out bandits over and over for so long? Or just calling the options update 2.7 or whatever? Maybe they don't care about PR, but with how quickly they backpedaled after 2.0's fiasco, I think they do. Of course, TFP is a pendulum. They tend to overcompensate one way then the other over and over before they eventually figure out how to put something in the middle, so we'll see.

Does changing the version numbers actually accomplish anything?
 
They should switch their versioning to letters or even better a code word. Instead of 3.0 just call it "Sandbox Update". The bandit update can be called "Threat Update". They bucked industry norms a little bit which caused confusion. They should just go whole hog and abandon numbers.
 
Roland said:
They should switch their versioning to letters or even better a code word. Instead of 3.0 just call it "Sandbox Update". The bandit update can be called "Threat Update". They bucked industry norms a little bit which caused confusion. They should just go whole hog and abandon numbers.
Click to expand...
numbers or letters...if they just explained What they are doing and Why... most people would adjust. imo. but, that info will only come "in due time"? When is that?
TFP already burned thru the time they said it would take... and just casually mentioned it will take another 22 months to get what they NOW have planned "done".
You may be right Roland...call the updates whatever you like...chances are that the negative long term impact to PR has already been done...what more damage to their own rep can they really do at this point? may as well have some fun with it.
 
faatal said:
faatal said:
A lot of things are not fleshed out yet, but we will probably hit 8.0 to 10.0 in about 22 months. ;)
Post automatically merged:


Also head shot only, which is a sandbox option and it comes with two different modes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Roland said:
View attachment 38583

JK….
Click to expand...

Roland said:
View attachment 38583

JK….
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20260228_125558_Samsung Notes.jpg
Post automatically merged:

The headshot settings is really cool i hope we can turn off head shot damage multiplier
 
Riamus said:
If you define major and minor, what do you think fits a major update? Does adding something like a chicken coop actually qualify as a major update? Does it significantly change the game in some way? I see it as just a minor addition to the game. Do you see any known features coming besides bandits and the story/gold levels that are actually major changes to the game? If so, I'd be interested in seeing what you think is major. Having even 100 bug fixes in an update is still just a bug fix update rather than a major update. Changing something like needing empty jars for a dew collector isn't major even if it might feel like it to those of us who don't like the idea. *Maybe* I can consider the options version to be a major update, depending on what kinds of options they actually add and if they are significant or not. But I can't think of anything else that could qualify. If you can, I'm interested in hearing what they are.
Click to expand...

You are talking about major and minor updates, but so far we just know there will be major and minor version numbers, with unknown new definition of their meaning.
Even if you call the numbers themselves major and minor, the difference between them is defined by whoever generates them.

Often it means that only major versions include new features or that only major versions have incompatible changes. But it could be anything, even "minor number was just getting too big" is a valid reason that actually happened with the linux kernel

We know the meaning of major and minor version numbers until 2.6. Since they now change the numbering scheme they can as well change the definition.

Chicken coup needs a major version number? Why not! 3 months having passed, needs a major version number? Sure!

Riamus said:
And if we are just talking about the options update, what is better for PR? Making options 3.0 when they have been telling people for years that 3.0 is bandits after pushing out bandits over and over for so long? Or just calling the options update 2.7 or whatever? Maybe they don't care about PR, but with how quickly they backpedaled after 2.0's fiasco, I think they do. Of course, TFP is a pendulum. They tend to overcompensate one way then the other over and over before they eventually figure out how to put something in the middle, so we'll see.
Click to expand...

I agree that having a 3.0 without bandits would create backlash. I would at least add some minimal bandits spawns ("for test purposes") but maybe they want a BIG bandit release at all costs and just take the backlash as a necessary evil. At the moment we can only speculate and even a combined release of bandits and option upgrade is still a possibility.

Riamus said:
Does changing the version numbers actually accomplish anything?
Click to expand...

I don't know and it doesn't make much difference to me. I can play multiple different (major or minor) versions at the same time. So faster major version releases, even if they still need restarts, will not change my schedule.
 
Last edited:
faatal said:
A lot of things are not fleshed out yet, but we will probably hit 8.0 to 10.0 in about 22 months.
Click to expand...
Then it's time to make a system to upgrade savefiles, at least for console. Or just give up crossplay and do a maximum of 2 udates a year for consoles.
As it is now, my PS5 is not ready for more content without more optimisation, I prefere better stable performance over more content. Not just in fps but also less zeds and objects coming out of nowhere at close range while you know already where it is. Fix broken mechanics like animal tracker or out of sync hits and animation, the run indicator being random as F.

Consoles don't have the option to fall back on an old version so don't force us to start over again when general performance is getting worse. I do like the 2.5 gameplay more than 1.X but 1.X felt more reliable and stable.
 
meganoth said:
I read it that new features will be introduced much faster into the game. You probably will not see many pure bug fix releases anymore but major updates coming every (???) 3 to 6 months, with fewer features naturally (2.6 may be a good example of what to expect).

We'll have to see if they can actually do that like advertised, but if they can do it, players on console with a desire to play a world for a longer time will probably go ballistic ;) . For most players it will be a good change as they want "new stuff" and new POI as fast as possible, more similar to a service game
Click to expand...
Game was offered as "Early acces" inspite of being 1.0 but not as a live service game with 5 seasons a year. I would never have bought it if it was advertised that way.
 
Dead Smarty said:
Then it's time to make a system to upgrade savefiles, at least for console. Or just give up crossplay and do a maximum of 2 udates a year for consoles.
As it is now, my PS5 is not ready for more content without more optimisation, I prefere better stable performance over more content. Not just in fps but also less zeds and objects coming out of nowhere at close range while you know already where it is. Fix broken mechanics like animal tracker or out of sync hits and animation, the run indicator being random as F.

Consoles don't have the option to fall back on an old version so don't force us to start over again when general performance is getting worse. I do like the 2.5 gameplay more than 1.X but 1.X felt more reliable and stable.
Click to expand...
While I won't say never, 3.0 and 4.0 should not break saves.

I found one performance issue this week from a change in 2.5 that will be fixed in 2.6 stable. I am looking for more optimizations.
 
Roland said:
They should switch their versioning to letters
Click to expand...
Coming up next, Version J!
Post automatically merged:

faatal said:
I found one performance issue this week from a change in 2.5 that will be fixed in 2.6 stable. I am looking for more optimizations.
Click to expand...
PLease say it's the one that causes massive FPS drops in larger POIs and horde nights when more than one player is present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top