Can we be a little more careful with EXP -> Stable pushes???

[KhaineGB]

Seriously... I understand you guys have a time frame and all...

But we had A19.6b7 in experimental for just over a week. Today we suddenly got 19.6b8 (which steam did NOT update me to) and that got pushed to stable... and completely broke both my mods because of some of the main C# that got changed.

C'mon... I know there's only 1 tiny line in the changelog for the end user, but us modders know a LOT more goes on in the back end. Can you PLEASE try to be a little more considerate and NOT do that???

EDIT: For the record, the Exp build was different to the stable build for A19.5 too, but that didn't break anything to the point of being unable to progress past the main menu. 😛

Edited July 30, 2021 by KhaineGB (see edit history)

[Gazz]

The game is tested in the vanilla state. There is simply no way for us to know how anyone might have altered the actual code in a mod.

[saminal]

1 hour ago, Gazz said:

The game is tested in the vanilla state. There is simply no way for us to know how anyone might have altered the actual code in a mod.

 

Of course, but there is a way for you to release the very small change to Experimental for a day or two, then make the Stable version the same build as the latest Experimental. I don't play with C# in my mods at all, but I still like the chance to check they work a day or two before Stable pushes.

[KhaineGB]

10 hours ago, Gazz said:

The game is tested in the vanilla state. There is simply no way for us to know how anyone might have altered the actual code in a mod.

You're missing the point entirely.

b8, according to the forum post, was in experimental for HOURS (assuming that hateds post was correct), not days. You know what steam is like for updates and not pushing them out fast enough. The first I knew of b8 being out was the twitter post saying it was in stable.

THAT is what I am taking umbrige with. There should've been an experimental period for b8 just like there was for b7, even if it were just a day or two.

[Roland]

How did modders survive before there ever was experimental? TFP didn't always take advantage of the beta branches and create experimentals. All updates went straight to the main Steam branch with several hotfixes often getting pushed during the first couple of days. I want to say experimental branches only began at about Alpha 12 or 13 but I can't remember and those archived threads were lost during the forum switchover.

 

At any rate, please don't take umbridge with how they develop. They develop with what is best and easiest for development in mind. I understand your annoyance and have no problem with that but there should be no entitlement generating outrage. Anyone who chooses to start modding concurrently with development should also realize they are choosing the headaches inherent in doing that. Updates are going to disrupt and while having a nice cushion of time is nice while a build sits in experimental before it goes to the Steam main branch, that is not the reason nor the motivation for having experimental builds.

 

Love what you do with the game but developing the main game is TFP's focus and modders need to work around that priority and not expect TFP to dance to their tune.

 

I know why they pretty much went directly to main branch update and that is because this is hopefully their last A19 update and they want all work and resources to be turned now to the final home stretch of A20 development. They want to be done with A19 for good and the update didn't really require any experimental testing time.

[saminal]

I think we're both being polite, and just asking quite nicely if the last exp builds could be a little longer before going stable. 

 

To call that outrage is overstating it, and rather unfair. 

 

We appreciate that it would be worse if there were no experimentals at all! But there are experimentals, so why not stage them with that added consideration? Honestly, we're not asking much and I don't think we're acting entitled; we're just asking!

 

Please compare the tone of our posts with the tone of people asking things like "why is console being neglected?" and "will this game ever be finished?"

We're far from those guys.

[Roland]

I thought I was being polite in my answer as well. Is it impolite just because I'm saying something you don't want to hear? Khaine used three question marks on his request as well as a capitalized PLEASE and said that he takes umbrage with the decision which literally means to take offense and be angry, and hurt. That is where my remarks about entitlement and outrage came from. With text, you can only go off of the textual clues and word choices that the person decides to use and the only reason to actually feel offended by virtually no experimental is if you think it is something owed you. If there is no entitlement then you feel annoyance and surprise for sure but you aren't offended by it.

 

I'm not saying they should screw over all the modders by removing experimental. I'm saying that there was a time when modders had to deal with no experimental at all every time and they did okay. I'm saying that as a tool, the experimental branch is primarily and overwhelmingly for the use of the developers to use as best works for them. I agree that if it doesn't harm or delay their work then to be considerate of modders and leave a build in experimental for longer than it needs to for their sake would be nice.

 

But if they don't, then modders need to work around it. Pure and simple, modders work around the needs of the developers. Developers don't work around the needs of the modders. 

 

I will for sure mention it to Sascha who is the one who decides when builds go into and out of experimental. I can make the request as a calm 3rd party who isn't letting the annoyance of a surprise update color the wording at all. I'm not against them using experimentals as a cushion for modders. I'm just telling you that there is virtually no way for modders themselves to request this directly of the developers without it coming across smacking of entitlement and outrage especially if you are feeling annoyed and angry about the surprise.

[saminal]

Thank you for your offer to talk to Sascha, we really appreciate it.

[Roland]

Sascha said that they will strive to be more accommodating with leaving builds in experimental for a day or two whenever possible.

[saminal]

That's wonderful, please pass on our gratitude!

[KhaineGB]

2 hours ago, Roland said:

How did modders survive before there ever was experimental? TFP didn't always take advantage of the beta branches and create experimentals. All updates went straight to the main Steam branch with several hotfixes often getting pushed during the first couple of days. I want to say experimental branches only began at about Alpha 12 or 13 but I can't remember and those archived threads were lost during the forum switchover.

 

At any rate, please don't take umbridge with how they develop. They develop with what is best and easiest for development in mind. I understand your annoyance and have no problem with that but there should be no entitlement generating outrage. Anyone who chooses to start modding concurrently with development should also realize they are choosing the headaches inherent in doing that. Updates are going to disrupt and while having a nice cushion of time is nice while a build sits in experimental before it goes to the Steam main branch, that is not the reason nor the motivation for having experimental builds.

 

Love what you do with the game but developing the main game is TFP's focus and modders need to work around that priority and not expect TFP to dance to their tune.

 

I know why they pretty much went directly to main branch update and that is because this is hopefully their last A19 update and they want all work and resources to be turned now to the final home stretch of A20 development. They want to be done with A19 for good and the update didn't really require any experimental testing time.

 

49 minutes ago, Roland said:

I thought I was being polite in my answer as well. Is it impolite just because I'm saying something you don't want to hear? Khaine used three question marks on his request as well as a capitalized PLEASE and said that he takes umbrage with the decision which literally means to take offense and be angry, and hurt. That is where my remarks about entitlement and outrage came from. With text, you can only go off of the textual clues and word choices that the person decides to use and the only reason to actually feel offended by virtually no experimental is if you think it is something owed you. If there is no entitlement then you feel annoyance and surprise for sure but you aren't offended by it.

 

I'm not saying they should screw over all the modders by removing experimental. I'm saying that there was a time when modders had to deal with no experimental at all every time and they did okay. I'm saying that as a tool, the experimental branch is primarily and overwhelmingly for the use of the developers to use as best works for them. I agree that if it doesn't harm or delay their work then to be considerate of modders and leave a build in experimental for longer than it needs to for their sake would be nice.

 

But if they don't, then modders need to work around it. Pure and simple, modders work around the needs of the developers. Developers don't work around the needs of the modders. 

 

I will for sure mention it to Sascha who is the one who decides when builds go into and out of experimental. I can make the request as a calm 3rd party who isn't letting the annoyance of a surprise update color the wording at all. I'm not against them using experimentals as a cushion for modders. I'm just telling you that there is virtually no way for modders themselves to request this directly of the developers without it coming across smacking of entitlement and outrage especially if you are feeling annoyed and angry about the surprise.

I specifically used umbrage because it exactly fit what you described.

 

I was angry. Very angry.

And I felt that was the best way to express myself while tempering things a bit.

However, my point remains. A19.5 and A19.6 are the only 2 releases with build numbers that differ from the last experimental when pushed to stable in my experience (starting A17). Example, I had everything updated and ready on 19.5b55, 19.5b60 went to stable... not experimental (thankfully nothing broke). In this case, I had everything tested and working on 19.6b7, then 19.6b8 went to stable with WAY more under the hood changes than the changelog stated, because it quite literally broke both mods to the point of crashing the main menu GUI.

This isn't a sense of entitlement. This is being annoyed because I think I'm ready to minimize impact to my users, and then suddenly everything is completely borked due to unannounced and untested changes. Then having to stay up a further 4 hours to fix and re-upload everything so I don't wake up to a million DM's and pings, which I think is something the team can absolutely understand.

And for the record, yes your answer was polite and I am very thankful for that.  But honestly, please look at how other games handle things like this. Right now, Rimworld and Minecraft are pretty much the gold standard for getting builds out into both private and public testing arenas so the modding community can do their thing and be ready.

The TFP way isn't the only way, or the best way.

[Roland]

1 hour ago, KhaineGB said:

The TFP way isn't the only way, or the best way.

It’s the development way. I’m sorry but your efforts are #2 when compared to the efforts of the developers to put out the base game they are developing. 
 

In this specific case A19.6 was in experimental for a week. They pushed a new build and then went stable because they felt the changes were low risk to the stability of the game. That is not an outrageous way of updating their game.

 

What is pretty outrageous is you comparing 7 Days to Die, a game that is fully under development and not even to the point of having official mod support, to Minecraft and Rimworld which are both released games. Of course the priority for those games has shifted to modding as the first consideration. The developers are finished with their work and any further content isn’t going to fundamentally change the game in a way that breaks the mods. 
 

Frankly, I would have thought this would have been a conversation I would need to have with a brand new modder who didn’t realize updates would break his mod rather than a veteran like you. 
 

This is all academic anyway because TFP said they would try to be more accommodating in how they update and let new builds sit on experimentals as they can. You can thank me for asking instead of letting you be the one to ask…
 

But Dude, what it boils down to is what I say to any modder who gets annoyed by dev work messing up mod work. If you can’t handle it, wait until modding is officially supported. I’m grateful and impressed by anyone who mods during the alpha phase of this game. I couldn’t continue with it, myself, so I’m impressed by those who can. But…it is the way it is and someday it will be like Minecraft and Rimworld when this game gets to the point where they are. 

[KhaineGB]

2 hours ago, Roland said:

It’s the development way.

No it's not. It's the TFP way, which isn't always the right way, as stated.

 

Quote

What is pretty outrageous is you comparing 7 Days to Die, a game that is fully under development and not even to the point of having official mod support, to Minecraft and Rimworld which are both released games. Of course the priority for those games has shifted to modding as the first consideration. The developers are finished with their work and any further content isn’t going to fundamentally change the game in a way that breaks the mods.

And you understand WHY I picked both of those games, right?

Both started with early access (like 7 days to die), both with "opt in" experimental branches (like 7 days to die) and both very supporting of modding later on in their development life cycles, while still being in early access (like 7 days to die).

And they handled modding and communication with those people WAY better. The fact they are now released (and that's a whole other topic I could happily spin off to) is not outrageous given how they started, the fact they're similar in genre to 7DTD, and what they offer to players.

I mean no disrespect with this... but this bit?
 

Quote

Frankly, I would have thought this would have been a conversation I would need to have with a brand new modder who didn’t realize updates would break his mod rather than a veteran like you. 

You're missing the point.

I expected an update to break my mod. And I downloaded that update (b7). And I updated my stuff. Absolutely no problem there. A FURTHER UPDATE getting pushed to stable with no testing period? No. I don't expect that. Especially when doing a diffcompare only shows tweaks to windows.xml to fix some twitch stuff. Not when the past 3 alphas of me modding has never done this (with the noted 19.5 exception that I thought was very odd). 

 

It is very obvious that some TFP staff (not all) are... not receptive to modding. They don't like to address it, they don't like to discuss it. Even bugs that are in the base game code, that I can patch and fix with harmony, are IGNORED if they are exposed via modding the game. There is a disconnect between the community at large (not just modders), modders and whoever is calling the shots. I've been saying for a while that it needs to change, and thank you for bringing up that concern to Sascha (who, in the past has been ABSOLUTELY ON POINT with the experimental releases -> stable. Just not 19.5 and 19.6 for some reason).

I know you can't do what the community says. I get that. Nothing would get done. But all concerns, modding, game direction, whatever, need to start being considered and addressed.

Edited July 31, 2021 by KhaineGB (see edit history)

[Jost Amman]

@Roland I can understand and mostly agree with all KhaineGB said.

 

The developers of Rimworld, as an example, have always worked having great regard for the modders, even during the EA days. That paid out.

 

I'd also factor in the fact that mods, Darkness Falls and the others, according to all the posts I read on Steam, are the biggest reason why the game is still played today in such big numbers by the community. This is not to say vanilla is not good, it's great and TFP are doing a great job. I'm just saying that most "veterans" of the game can liven up gameplay and still find 7D2D interesting after all these years thanks to these mods.

 

With that in mind, I think modders should get as much attention as vanilla, at least for what regards the versioning part of the game. I think TFP can understand and agree with this, since they too started as modders after all. I know at their time it was different and modders were left "alone in the dark" to handle development hell, but exactly because of that they can do better than the game companies they had to deal with at their time.

 

So, also as a player of DF... I thank you for being a good liaison between the modders (the community) and the devs.

IMO the fact they agreed to better handle releases in the future is proof they understand and agree that's a better way to work with modders.

[7daystodierocks]

10 hours ago, Roland said:

How did modders survive before there ever was experimental? TFP didn't always take advantage of the beta branches and create experimentals. All updates went straight to the main Steam branch with several hotfixes often getting pushed during the first couple of days. I want to say experimental branches only began at about Alpha 12 or 13 but I can't remember and those archived threads were lost during the forum switchover.

 

At any rate, please don't take umbridge with how they develop. They develop with what is best and easiest for development in mind. I understand your annoyance and have no problem with that but there should be no entitlement generating outrage. Anyone who chooses to start modding concurrently with development should also realize they are choosing the headaches inherent in doing that. Updates are going to disrupt and while having a nice cushion of time is nice while a build sits in experimental before it goes to the Steam main branch, that is not the reason nor the motivation for having experimental builds.

 

Love what you do with the game but developing the main game is TFP's focus and modders need to work around that priority and not expect TFP to dance to their tune.

 

I know why they pretty much went directly to main branch update and that is because this is hopefully their last A19 update and they want all work and resources to be turned now to the final home stretch of A20 development. They want to be done with A19 for good and the update didn't really require any experimental testing time.

i think what khaine is saying roland is maybe give the modders a tiny heads up so that way they dont learn through a third party about an update and then TFP get people @%$#ed at them in the forums would save everyone a massive headache in the long run and PS to be brutallly honest the modders seem to be doing a pretty good job as it sits ATM

4 hours ago, KhaineGB said:

No it's not. It's the TFP way, which isn't always the right way, as stated.

 

And you understand WHY I picked both of those games, right?

Both started with early access (like 7 days to die), both with "opt in" experimental branches (like 7 days to die) and both very supporting of modding later on in their development life cycles, while still being in early access (like 7 days to die).

And they handled modding and communication with those people WAY better. The fact they are now released (and that's a whole other topic I could happily spin off to) is not outrageous given how they started, the fact they're similar in genre to 7DTD, and what they offer to players.

I mean no disrespect with this... but this bit?
 

You're missing the point.

I expected an update to break my mod. And I downloaded that update (b7). And I updated my stuff. Absolutely no problem there. A FURTHER UPDATE getting pushed to stable with no testing period? No. I don't expect that. Especially when doing a diffcompare only shows tweaks to windows.xml to fix some twitch stuff. Not when the past 3 alphas of me modding has never done this (with the noted 19.5 exception that I thought was very odd). 

 

It is very obvious that some TFP staff (not all) are... not receptive to modding. They don't like to address it, they don't like to discuss it. Even bugs that are in the base game code, that I can patch and fix with harmony, are IGNORED if they are exposed via modding the game. There is a disconnect between the community at large (not just modders), modders and whoever is calling the shots. I've been saying for a while that it needs to change, and thank you for bringing up that concern to Sascha (who, in the past has been ABSOLUTELY ON POINT with the experimental releases -> stable. Just not 19.5 and 19.6 for some reason).

I know you can't do what the community says. I get that. Nothing would get done. But all concerns, modding, game direction, whatever, need to start being considered and addressed.

couldnt have said it better my self sometimes the highway isnt always the right way

 

6 hours ago, Roland said:

It’s the development way. I’m sorry but your efforts are #2 when compared to the efforts of the developers to put out the base game they are developing. 
 

In this specific case A19.6 was in experimental for a week. They pushed a new build and then went stable because they felt the changes were low risk to the stability of the game. That is not an outrageous way of updating their game.

 

What is pretty outrageous is you comparing 7 Days to Die, a game that is fully under development and not even to the point of having official mod support, to Minecraft and Rimworld which are both released games. Of course the priority for those games has shifted to modding as the first consideration. The developers are finished with their work and any further content isn’t going to fundamentally change the game in a way that breaks the mods. 
 

Frankly, I would have thought this would have been a conversation I would need to have with a brand new modder who didn’t realize updates would break his mod rather than a veteran like you. 
 

This is all academic anyway because TFP said they would try to be more accommodating in how they update and let new builds sit on experimentals as they can. You can thank me for asking instead of letting you be the one to ask…
 

But Dude, what it boils down to is what I say to any modder who gets annoyed by dev work messing up mod work. If you can’t handle it, wait until modding is officially supported. I’m grateful and impressed by anyone who mods during the alpha phase of this game. I couldn’t continue with it, myself, so I’m impressed by those who can. But…it is the way it is and someday it will be like Minecraft and Rimworld when this game gets to the point where they are. 

in this case roland, khaine is right both sides need better communication in the future

[BFT2020]

I love mods and fully support modders, but I agree with Roland.  Since this game is under development, the development of the game is priority and everything else is secondary, including mod support.  If they can do things to support modding, then that is up to them whether or not they do it; not a requirement.

 

The schedule and release of updates (both large and small) and hotfixes should always be based on what the developers want, not what the modders want.  The majority of these updates has been communicate out and there has been time for modders to adjust, but that should never be the requirement that the devs should meet; just a nice to have when possible.

[meganoth]

I would be on Rolands side here but for one little detail: The fact that the last stable version in steam is not available by name but is selected by "opting out of all betas". Because of this players playing the mod with latest stable version automatically get updated to a new stable version and are left with a broken mod.

 

I ordinarily wouldn't see a reason for a modder to be able to have a working mod on day 1 of a new stable version, but this small automatism makes it impossible for the modder to simply say to users to not upgrade. They will be upgraded and unless they really understand the confusing scheme of steam versioning they will get into trouble.

 

---

 

The other problem of not taking "modding" bug reports needs some consideration as well. Bug reports from modded games should still be ignored, sure. But bug reports of modded xml that should work but doesn't, maybe even with reference to the c# code where the  bug is? Well, that is a different cup of tea. Because I suspect that library code is largely in a beta state now (instead of being the focus of redesigns and rewrites) fixing those bugs would not be fixing temporary code anymore and would have to be done eventually anyway.

 

At this stage other EA games have fixed bugs in their modding interface. See here a changelog from factorio version 0.15.29 in 2017 https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50852 , with a bug fix and features specifically for modding. Since 0.18 later became the release version this is the fourth to last alpha version.

 

Maybe a change already happened and reporting bugs in the xml layer is possible by now but nobody does it because TFP refused them in earlier alphas? Maybe the programmers would be happy to get such bug reports but testers didn't get the word? If not it might be time for TFP to rethink its position on this and check if the policy is still the right thing.

 

[Jost Amman]

3 hours ago, BFT2020 said:

If they can do things to support modding, then that is up to them whether or not they do it; not a requirement.

Who was talking about requirement??

KhaineGB was just saying he was upset because he was caught off guard by the change of release routine, not that the TFP MUST do as he says or else... 

Of course it's up to them. If it was for you, we all understand very well you wouldn't care.

[KhaineGB]

3 hours ago, meganoth said:

I ordinarily wouldn't see a reason for a modder to be able to have a working mod on day 1 of a new stable version, but this small automatism makes it impossible for the modder to simply say to users to not upgrade. They will be upgraded and unless they really understand the confusing scheme of steam versioning they will get into trouble.

This.

It is ESPECIALLY true with third party server hosts who often just update the server on the clients behalf and do not offer a rollback service. Even modded ones.

[7daystodierocks]

16 hours ago, meganoth said:

I would be on Rolands side here but for one little detail: The fact that the last stable version in steam is not available by name but is selected by "opting out of all betas". Because of this players playing the mod with latest stable version automatically get updated to a new stable version and are left with a broken mod.

 

I ordinarily wouldn't see a reason for a modder to be able to have a working mod on day 1 of a new stable version, but this small automatism makes it impossible for the modder to simply say to users to not upgrade. They will be upgraded and unless they really understand the confusing scheme of steam versioning they will get into trouble.

 

---

 

The other problem of not taking "modding" bug reports needs some consideration as well. Bug reports from modded games should still be ignored, sure. But bug reports of modded xml that should work but doesn't, maybe even with reference to the c# code where the  bug is? Well, that is a different cup of tea. Because I suspect that library code is largely in a beta state now (instead of being the focus of redesigns and rewrites) fixing those bugs would not be fixing temporary code anymore and would have to be done eventually anyway.

 

At this stage other EA games have fixed bugs in their modding interface. See here a changelog from factorio version 0.15.29 in 2017 https://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=50852 , with a bug fix and features specifically for modding. Since 0.18 later became the release version this is the fourth to last alpha version.

 

Maybe a change already happened and reporting bugs in the xml layer is possible by now but nobody does it because TFP refused them in earlier alphas? Maybe the programmers would be happy to get such bug reports but testers didn't get the word? If not it might be time for TFP to rethink its position on this and check if the policy is still the right thing.

 

i agree mega i think all khaine was asking for is a 1-2 day advanced notice on updates like that especially if it breaks the modders work, i dont know how hard it is to mod but i can imagine its not fun and most likely isnt easy either, i wouldnt want something i spent 6+ months working on just to get severely broken because a dev team didnt care to notify me ahead of time

[Gazz]

20 hours ago, meganoth said:

The other problem of not taking "modding" bug reports needs some consideration as well. Bug reports from modded games should still be ignored, sure. But bug reports of modded xml that should work but doesn't, maybe even with reference to the c# code where the  bug is? Well, that is a different cup of tea. Because I suspect that library code is largely in a beta state now (instead of being the focus of redesigns and rewrites) fixing those bugs would not be fixing temporary code anymore and would have to be done eventually anyway.

It depends.

In most cases you have A Regular Player report a bug from his modded game.
There is no way to tell what version, variant or configuration of the mod he's using or what "improvements" he may have made to it even if the name of the mod is stated.
Tracking a "bug" like that is a complete waste of time and testers have work to do.

OTOH: Modders have reported many valid bugs because they do understand what's going on - even if the bug only surfaces in the very specific conditions of their mod.
That's why we tell people to report that in the mod's topic. If a modder finds a bug that would also occur in the vanilla game then that's a wholly different category.

[meganoth]

10 hours ago, Gazz said:

It depends.

In most cases you have A Regular Player report a bug from his modded game.
There is no way to tell what version, variant or configuration of the mod he's using or what "improvements" he may have made to it even if the name of the mod is stated.
Tracking a "bug" like that is a complete waste of time and testers have work to do.

 

Yes, I specifically said this category should be ignored.

 

10 hours ago, Gazz said:

OTOH: Modders have reported many valid bugs because they do understand what's going on - even if the bug only surfaces in the very specific conditions of their mod.
That's why we tell people to report that in the mod's topic. If a modder finds a bug that would also occur in the vanilla game then that's a wholly different category.

 

Ok, Neither KhaineGB it seems nor myself did know that you take such bug reports now. Some alphas ago I still heard a modder complain that such bug reports were not accepted and I haven't heard about a change in policy (though I tend to forget a lot that was said years ago)

 

But thats good to hear. @KhaineGB : You read that? Report away and if a tester were to reject your report on those grounds you can point to this official stamp of approval from Gazz.

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[KhaineGB]

Yup, seen and remembered. If I found anything that's a base game bug, but can be exposted via modding, i'll make sure it gets passed on.

Like SellableToTrader=false showing no sell price on items, even if you can BUY them.  That's been a bug for ages.

[unholyjoe]

2 hours ago, KhaineGB said:

Yup, seen and remembered. If I found anything that's a base game bug, but can be exposted via modding, i'll make sure it gets passed on.

Like SellableToTrader=false showing no sell price on items, even if you can BUY them.  That's been a bug for ages.

and reported as well

 

is on the KI list at aprox line 104 (just confirming its on the ki list)

Edited August 1, 2021 by unholyjoe (see edit history)

[KhaineGB]

Awesome, also found a vanilla example of that too for reproduction.

Minibike. It's set to false (so you can't make and sell it) but it is in the trader list.