v0.31 Talk:Release information

New Articles sharing old Titles

Some confusion may exist about how to edit/rewrite existing articles if/when the new version and old have conflicts. These conflicts could be in the detail, or in entirely and radically different presentation of the same "game term".

I'll use the game-term "wound" as an example, since it seems quite probable that that will change and the present article may need some sort of rewrite for the next version.

The Admin have established different "namespaces" for different versions - so there is 40d (the "current" version, for another week or so at least), and there will be another namespace for the upcoming version, currently known as "DF2010", but not for long.* As an aid, there is also a "cv" function, which is "current version" - this can be automatically updated whenever the "current version" does. Each of these will allow older versions to maintain their existing wiki articles after a new version is released.

What will happen is this:

In the 40d namespace, the existing "wound" article, 40d:wound, will remain as is, untouched - still valid and accurate as it stands for this version.
A new article will be created for "( newversion# ):wound", to be forever consistent with all other newversion# articles.*
The Search term "wound" (also known as "mainspace", page title = "wound" with no version modifier) will redirect to "cv:wound", which it does now (or should), so no edit is necessary there. ("cv" = "current version", so "wound" redirects to 40d now, and will redirect to the next version as soon as we have that one up and running.*)

That's how it's going to work with many, many articles that share names but not details between the present version and the one we might have within a week.

(* All users should be conscious that there will be no version called "DF2010" - it will have a significant reference number like "40d" or "23a" or whatever, but exactly what that number will be we won't know until Toady tells us, which might not be until the release itself.)

Now, that said, it's also possible that older article names, previous organization of related terms into "umbrella" articles, and significant article titles may get reworked. As a case in point, the current umbrella article for "DF2010 wound" is currently hospital. Each concept, each article and/or group of related terms should be considered both by itself and with regard to others. It may take some reshuffling, so be aware and stay flexible. --Albedo 21:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(misc initial reactions to announcement)

50-100 layers? That’s so ~~sweet~~dwarfish! Looking forward!– unsigned comment by WFrag

Looking forward to a lot of game lag! Can you say 1 frame/second? Urgh... (and remember to sign your comments, pls!)--Albedo 05:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought of that too, but I really hope closing mined out parts with walls will help. Haven't tried on current version, though. – ANOTHER unsigned comment by WFrag10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"The material system has been rewritten, and just about everything is made from a material now." Does this potentially mean that constructions can burn and melt now with the 2010 version?--Jargo 2:48 PST, March 02 2010

I think I remember hearing Toady say that constructions *wouldn't* burn or melt yet, but I could be imagining that. --Doomchild 20:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Will dwarfs realize fire is bad? - anon

No, i read on the forums they still don't :) --Qiu 20:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is in dire need of material links.

how about armor for wardogs? Wunksta 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a "suggestions" sub-forum in the forums.--Albedo 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Overview of "2010" once it's released?

Once the new version is released, the new articles will start being written (as "fact", rather than guesswork) - cool. Then this page will be... what? I'm wondering... Mason posted this:

I had actually originally intended to take the DF2010 article and split it into a bunch of articles
so people can read about each of the new features in a full article that would later develop into 
the details when they were available after release.

Well, that's not practical for a number of reasons, as we're finding out.

But would it be an idea to break this article into a very few "What has changed?" articles, to help players know what they should read up on? Some stuff won't change, a LOT of stuff won't matter in game play (raw changes, "hair", some combat, etc), some will be optional/advanced (for example, you either use Burrows, or you don't - but if you don't, the game won't kill you for your oversight. I hope.) But some will be IMPORTANT to know and be aware of - and while we don't want redundant articles explaining those changes, an article pointing to the important, critical changes that players "should read" might be a good thing, and a natural development from this article.

~IF~ users want to go there, this should be broken up into a series of several categories, linked from the top of this page - perhaps each titled "Ver1234: What has changed with _______". In those, one will not see the changes, merely a list of what has changed, and links to those articles. I see "What has changed with: Combat (inc Arenas, which is a "combat sandbox"), Healing, the World (inc creatures, materials, the map, underground features, world gen)... and I think that might cover it. If someone wanted to do Modding, I could certainly see that too, even if it overlapped with some of the above.

Again - these would not be overview - the idea is that not much detail whatsoever will be on these pages, rather to simply point to those articles that will explain the important changes in that category, and be tighter and more relevant to "important changes" than this beast. Thoughts?--Albedo 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I think the best thing to do though is take this article after release and have some brief "overview" information about the version. Some details about the major features (ex: "Burrows allow you to group dwarves into particular areas"), and then we can have a list of changes afterwords. Mason ^(T-C) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I'd rather not see is a quick and dirty "explanation" of a subject - like "burrows", which is then fully explained elsewhere - that breaks the "no redundancy" rule, and accomplishes little that the main article wouldn't (in theory). Rather, these would act as a clearing house, trying to give players a rough overview of what articles they should read and what are less important. For "burrows", a simple line like "Burrows allow you to group your dwarves by area - read burrows". Each user can then decide if they want to read that or not. But for game-critical changes, like how a dwarf heals, these articles would emphasize that "You should read how it works now". And the flipside, for those that are completely behind the scenes, the user is told they can safely ignore them if they choose and their fortress won't fail because of the changes.--Albedo 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

new.df/wagn?

The links to new.df.magmawiki.net/wagn/Burrows aren't working. What was that pointing to? --Bombcar 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to Burrows AFAIK. Mason ^(T-C) 21:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It was pointing to an idea that was abandoned.--Albedo 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

release date reference

Does anyone have the link to where Toady actually mentions an upcoming release date? In the forums, I presume - just curious as to what was said exactly. thnx.--Albedo 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dev Blog the 03/26/2010 post. --Syzgyn ^T ^C 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)]

Thnx!--Albedo 18:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugs

There is a Template:L page. Bugs section on this page should be merged into that. --Squirrelloid 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)