Updated Manual?

[Gandalf Parker]

In Game Manual:
It would be nice to have. Better if the devs programmed it to call an external file which could be added to by the dom community.

But how would adding the overhead to the game be different than making your own clickable link to Edi's Database or to Lch's wiki? I have the same reaction when people want builtin options for screen capture or backups or all of the other things that can be done with 3rd party options. It doesnt need to be in the game, limiting our choices and adding massive overhead just for people who want it in the menu so they can find it easier

Spell Descriptions:
There is a program that will update spell descripts. And the source code is available. Its fairly easy to update it. You can also use it to change the tips that appear and other text. BUT it modifies the executable of the game itself. Thats one reason Ive been leary of linking to it on my dom3 site. It just seemed like a direction I didnt feel right in supporting.

Mod Documentation:
I think this tends to get back into the territory that the manual did. Developers should not do the documentation. By the time they get it to work, they are too deep to think and question and answer like a newbie who is looking at it for the first time. Developers of games feel their game is "intuitive".

And developers of mods feel that mods are self-explanatory. Anyone who has extensively worked with mod commands (or map commands, or command line switches) tends to look at those and feel its clear as a bell. No further explanation is needed than the code itself. In every case (as the manual itself exemplifies) documentation is best done by a 3rd party looking at it from scratch and keeping good notes on what did and didnt need explanation. I dont knock anyones efforts to document their own. I just feel it can usually be done better if done by new eyes.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Now, given that the vanilla game is horribly balanced ...

I'll grant you that the balancing is better in CBM (although I can only fully agree on the gods and pricing part + (many) spell changes - the luck scale I took in the non CBM has certainly paid off).

When i get a new car, ...

You missed my point. When you start driving a new car you don't read the documentation, you just drive. Every car drives differently, but the basic "mechanics" of driving are the same.
It's the same for the game - your strategies (and exploits) remain completely the same (prot vs damage - att vs def - awe versus morale - rout and take retreat route and defending against it - buff vs damage spells - etc) only the tools change (this spell has double aoe, berserker costs gems).
In most cases you shouldn't even have problems using something that works well in vanilla in CBM, only that you have more counters and alternatives.
...

One should argue that CBM's continuing to get updated is an advantage

...
It is certainly an advantage but it's another point why it is not good to learn the game by learning CBM 1.6. by heart, instead you learn the mechanics and adjust to it in the game you are (as you do in any case).
Which makes "play only CBM in order to learn it by heart" a moot point.

And lastly you have not provided a single reason why you want to have a fixed standard in any case. Of course you are free to play only CBM games. But that doesn't mean that "every game *should* use it".

[Squirrelloid]

In Game Manual/Documentation:
Actually, the developers are the right people to do it because they wrote the code. They have access to the code. They're the only people who know for sure how everything works.

As to what to document? Everything. Every spell, every unit, every item, every mechanic. The actual algorithms used by the code should be made available, as should full stat displays, and so on. In fact, documentation should happen *as they write the code*. Anything else is sloppy programming.

You code a unit, you write the documentation page for it immediately thereafter. Now you have a record of what it does that you can reference as you code, *and* the user will have a document that tells them what it does. If you change the unit, change the documentation. (Ideally, the documentation can update changes automatically by being linked into the code).

I shouldn't have to start up a game as a nation to see what their units do, or play 40 turns to see what their national spells do. That can be a lot of work for another game where you have to fight that nation, and then repeat for all your other adversaries. All the basic information should be accessible from inside the game itself.

Games like Civilizations have been doing this since the mid-90s. Its really not an unreasonable expectation.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

In Game Manual/Documentation:
Actually, the developers are the right people to do it because they wrote the code. They have access to the code. They're the only people who know for sure how everything works.

As to what to document? Everything. Every spell, every unit, every item, every mechanic. The actual algorithms used by the code should be made available, as should full stat displays, and so on. In fact, documentation should happen *as they write the code*. Anything else is sloppy programming.

Games like Civilizations have been doing this since the mid-90s. Its really not an unreasonable expectation.

Ahhh I see. That is definitely different than my idea of a game manual.
And different than the devs of this particular game so even if they felt they could have, it wouldnt have happened. In fact, some of that was specifically left out of the manual we have now.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Ahhh I see. That is definitely different than my idea of a game manual.
And different than the devs of this particular game so even if they felt they could have, it wouldnt have happened. In fact, some of that was specifically left out of the manual we have now.

I hate to say it, but the devs are wrong if they think its ok to obscur information in an RTS. If they want to write a non-competitive game, like an RPG, they should do that instead.

During a game where you compete against other players, access to the rules should not be made hard.

[Ballbarian]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

I hate to say it, but the devs are wrong if they think its ok to obscur information in an RTS. If they want to write a non-competitive game, like an RPG, they should do that instead.

During a game where you compete against other players, access to the rules should not be made hard.

I think the devs are right. My own preference is to have a little obscurity. I tend to play more by feel than by spreadsheet. Nothing wrong with playing by spreadsheet, but I find learning what works and what doesn't to be part of the attraction of the game. I absolutely detest games where Unit A has a strength of 3 and Unit B has a strength of 2 and the outcome of every battle is always Unit A beats Unit B. No edge of your seat combat there.

[Sombre]

I agree that such databases are a strong feature of in-game documentation. They also point to good internal data/code structure. But we live in the real world and it's hardly a deal breaker to most people. I'd rather have sloppy code than no code and sometimes that's the choice.

[Seve82]

Well to answer first question about relevance of game manual its p.o.s. for most parts.

Sad but true after cbm. After I have played this game with cbm I think manual seems to be less and less usefull tho I find spell index still somewhat usefull not much else in manual.

Pardon my grammar... been drinkin a bit.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Seve82

Sad but true after cbm. After I have played this game with cbm I think manual seems to be less and less usefull tho I find spell index still somewhat usefull not much else in manual.

Formulas in the manual are invaluable IMHO. A new player has no idea what "Attack 15" or "Defense 12" means, or how that applies to what makes a unit good or bad. He can probably figure out Protection, at least in a gross sense (Prot 10 vs. 20 points of damage will usually take 10 points of damage) but doesn't understand how the variance works--how much damage will a Prot 20 guy take damage from a 10 point attack? He will have no clue at all how morale works, or fatigue.

Unless you know the rules you play by you might as well be playing an RTS, and you can't learn the rules without the manual or someone who learned it from the manual. Unless you have the source code, like lch.

-Max

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Formulas in the manual are invaluable IMHO. A new player has no idea what "Attack 15" or "Defense 12" means, or how that applies to what makes a unit good or bad. He can probably figure out Protection, at least in a gross sense (Prot 10 vs. 20 points of damage will usually take 10 points of damage) but doesn't understand how the variance works--how much damage will a Prot 20 guy take damage from a 10 point attack? He will have no clue at all how morale works, or fatigue.

I struggle to accept that anyone can have 'no idea' what att 12 and def 10 mean after looking at a handful of units.

Militia has 8 attack, a soldier has 10, an elite has 13. Durr, what could they possibly mean?

I agree they wouldn't know exactly how they worked, but it isn't like the manual is reliable in the cases where you need to know exactly how things work. It doesn't properly explain how prot works, for example. It incorrectly explains how various other things work. No point in me listing this stuff - there's a thread about it.