Recommended version in maps

[mr po]

Why most of the maps here don't have the latest version 1.29 included as recommended version? Is the new patch not compatible with maps created by lower versions of WE?

 

[TriggerHappy]

Why most of the maps here don't have the latest version 1.29 included as recommended version? Is the new patch not compatible with maps created by lower versions of WE?

Recommended game version is based off of the World Editor version the map was last saved with.

Some maps may need a couple changes to work properly on 1.29.

 

[Second]

Recommended game version is based off of the World Editor version the map was last saved with.

Some maps may need a couple changes to work properly on 1.29.

Hmmm... I have two questions sire.

Does that mean that when 1.29 goes properly live, all maps here would have to be updated to that version? And subsequently, do future map-makers have to map with 1.29 in mind?

 

[Ralle]

When you edit a map in the world editor and save it, it will show up as that version. The editor that saves the map decides what shows up in this field.

Keep in mind it is only the recommended version. It doesn't say it won't work in 1.28 for example.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Recommended version should probably be called something else as currently it might confuse people.

It would be better to call it Target version, Working version, or Stable version. These suggest the map was designed for those versions, and not that anyone is recommending that version be used to play the map.

 

[nedio95]

Recommended version should probably be called something else as currently it might confuse people.

It would be better to call it Target version, Working version, or Stable version. These suggest the map was designed for those versions, and not that anyone is recommending that version be used to play the map.

I believe "Recommended" is the proper word to use for this purpose as it is widely used in gaming/software for similar purposes.
E.g. Minimal requirements = X Gb RAM, Y GHz, Z Video Memory, Windows XP
Recommended = XX Gb RAM , YY GHz, ZZ Gb Video Memory, Windows 7

Btw, Command & Conquer Generals does not work on Win 8

I believe you get my point without further explanations needed.

regards
-Ned

 

[Dr Super Good]

I believe "Recommended" is the proper word to use for this purpose as it is widely used in gaming/software for similar purposes.

No it is not as one has to avoid liability, such as recommending people use a version with vulnerabilities that were patched for a reason.

E.g. Minimal requirements = X Gb RAM, Y GHz, Z Video Memory, Windows XP
Recommended = XX Gb RAM , YY GHz, ZZ Gb Video Memory, Windows 7

Hardware is different from software.
For example Oracle/Sun never recommend you use an old revision of a Java release. This is because they often fix critical security exploits.

 

[nedio95]

@Dr Super Good mmm, the Windows part of that is software, if I am not mistaken ?
Also, sometimes, they'd also include driver versions for video/sound cards in those recommendations.
I am not entirely sure if "Software, not Hardware" is appropriate, as those are neither, it is "recommended specifications" which are often(if not always) both software & hardware?
I mean, if we generalize this, it is Version X of A, Version Y of B, Version Z of C, etc.


When I give this a second thought and we take a look at the development process,
I can agree that "Recommended" != "Saved under version X of WE" as updating from version X to Y while in development may not reveal some bugs/errors/differences/mistakes/overlooks/etc. that have occurred in-between versions. As such, it is highly unlikely that in such cases it is a "recommended"...

Having this in mind, I cannot think of a proper word/term for this at the moment...
"Target" actually implies that the map has been developed with this particular version in mind. "Stable" & "Working" implies extensive testing and sounds like guarantee for quality, which unfortunately is almost never the case...
Maybe actually putting it as what it actually is: "Last updated with version: 1.29" or something similar...


@pyf C&C:Gen was just as an example as it fit perfectly to the discussion, I am not looking for help to get it working at all.
Vanilla versions bought years ago, would not work under Vanilla Win8 (they do on 7 though). Vanilla = as from shop, without you doing anything, "Please, insert disc here"
You could do something about this though, either get the bundle from origin and do some weird things or do A LOT of weird things to get it working.
Also, I've opened google about this the moment I got my laptop 3y ago.

 

[Dr Super Good]

@Dr Super Good mmm, the Windows part of that is software, if I am not mistaken ?

It is an operating system so is like hardware. If it does not offer the required features the game cannot work. For example StarCraft II will only work on Windows 7 or newer. Soon StarCraft II will only work on Windows 7 64bit or newer.

"Target" actually implies that the map has been developed with this particular version in mind. "Stable" & "Working" implies extensive testing and sounds like guarantee for quality, which unfortunately is almost never the case...

Both Target and Stable or suitable because those were the versions the map was under development for and hence did have testing and was made sure to be vaguely bug free. If the maker updates the map with a newer version of Warcraft III installed then one assumes they have tested it for that version and hence it is stable or working on that version.

@pyf C&C:Gen was just as an example as it fit perfectly to the discussion, I am not looking for help to get it working at all.

EA makes trash software, we all know.

 

[pyf]

It is an operating system so is like hardware. If it does not offer the required features the game cannot work. For example StarCraft II will only work on Windows 7 or newer. [...]

Original StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty system requirements, for PC and Mac:
What are the System Requirements for StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

 

[Dr Super Good]

Original StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty system requirements, for PC and Mac:

Blizzard has dropped support for all OS older than Windows 7 across all their games. All their modern games are soon going to be dropping D3D9 support and 32bit support.

 

[pyf]

[...] All their modern games are soon going to be dropping D3D9 support and 32bit support.

I am aware of this.


If human beings themselves were computers / cyborgs, then I wonder how many upgrades / updates they would require in order to still be able to play Tic-tac-toe on a sheet of paper.

Maybe time will tell?

Blizzard has dropped support for all OS older than Windows 7 across all their games. [...]

Not yet.

 

[Ralle]

So the conclusion is that "Target version: X.Y" would be more fitting?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Not yet.

Yes now...
StarCraft II System Requirements

Only Windows 7 and later supported for StarCraft II.

So the conclusion is that "Target version: X.Y" would be more fitting?

Yes.

 

[pyf]

Blizzard has dropped support for all OS older than Windows 7 across all their games. [...]

Yes now...

The release notes for WCIII 1.29 say that this will be the last version to support Windows XP. Meaning, support for this OS has not been dropped yet. Do note also that Windows Vista is not mentioned in any of the Patch 1.29.x release notes, PTR or not.

Therefore, I stand my case.
...
... unless I discover that Warcraft 3 is not a Blizzard game, of course. Also applies to Diablo II, btw.