Franciscus wrote:Well, probably a can of worms is about to be opened...
But trying to answer some of the questions brought by the OP, I have two points:
- To which it's own style of playing. Curiously I sincerely do not think that AACW had such a steep learning curve to be enjoyable by me. But that's because I do not really care to know all the intricacies and sub-rules. I probably only know well about 10% of the actual rules of the game. But I only play occasionally and only vs AI. I have no doubt I would be completely humiliated by a good PBEM player. But if you really want to know everything about the rules of the game you will have a tough time indeed. I doubt if even Pocus or Gray know them all. And that brings us to my 2nd point
Franciscus wrote:- One reason for the problems you are facing have to do with the way the game is evolving in the last months. For probably more than a year the game is stable and could be considered finished. But rule changes and some new features have constantly been added, partly as backfitting from the current development of the Ageod engine for the upcoming games (and this is a partial blessing for although these changes keep a 2 year old game "new", it can also be seen as making AACW players "betas" for Ageod), and partly because the "coordinator" is willing to continue making dB changes and creating some "historical" additional scenarios, different from the vanilla games, but potentially creating confusion about the different rules between the vanilla and "Ky" scenarios. This is one of the reasons for the frequent arguments you see in the forums. I have proposed that AACW should be considered finished and further changes should be better considered as a mod, but this can also be misinterpreted.
Nevertheless, even with all the "problems" this game is probably the best I have ever bought and never regretted it. Ageod is a great albeit small company. Although the documentation can indeed be considered outdated and confusing you will not find better support to us players than the one Pocus and Philthib provide.
Regards
Patches, HotFixes and QuickFixes: patches and the such should have their own home page, or at least a forum thread which cannot be updated by anybody other than the author. This should be where to find access to a download link to the patch and a clear and concise description of the patch. Want to discus the patch? Open a thread for discussing it.
[The extension pdf has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]
Patches, HotFixes and QuickFixes: patches and the such should have their own home page, or at least a forum thread which cannot be updated by anybody other than the author. This should be where to find access to a download link to the patch and a clear and concise description of the patch. Want to discus the patch? Open a thread for discussing it. Changes made to the way the game is played? Into the wiki. New patch? New thread.
gchristie wrote:Is there are lots of people eager to help out.
Take Aphrodite Mae and Dixicrat. They put together a very useful quick reference guide to changes in the game manual over time, which I believe they modeled on a similar document put together by Picaron in the Spanish forum. The reference guide shows changes to the manual up to and including version 1.13b as of June 2009.
IMHO, if you try to get too far under the hood, you may never get out again. While the documentation struggles to keep up with rapid advances in the game, folks in the forum will help you figure out the larger items.
Me, I try not to sweat the smaller stuff.
Enjoy and keep at it, your efforts will be rewarded.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Easily done when you have moderator capability in the necessary forums/sub-forums. Not so easily done if no moderator capable person is around. I gave up a while back trying to keep the main AACW forum organized because of the lack of such capabilities and it's only grown worse this summer since Rafiki has been understandably busy with his real life business.
Gray_Lensman wrote:I wouldn't describe the AACW manual as "half void" right now, but rather "half-empty". Half-void implies that half the information is incorrect which really isn't the case. It's just missing a heck of a lot of the new information about the changes that have been done over the last 2 years, but see the post below.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Captain_Orso:
The latest "official" patch is always stickied at the top of the main AACW forum page.
Beta Patches on the other hand are posted in the "Help to Improve AACW!" sub-forum.
QuickFixes posted within an "official" patch thread are "unofficial" temporary fixes posted by me for database errors discovered after the "official" patch was posted. I deliberately delete older Quickfix posts when I post new ones in order to reduce confusion as to which Quickfix is the latest. Since the Quickfixes are not "official" per se, it is my perogative, and will remain so, to remove them when I have a new one to post or the current one is perceived to possibly be causing crashes.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Though I confirmed that this link is mislabeled. It actually downloads version 1.14c. This site was just moved to a new server around the first of August, so not all items on the home page have been updated. AGEod is a small company with very little in the way of a full web support staff.
Gray_Lensman wrote:There is a file named ACW Updates.rtf in the main game folder which list ALL the changes through ALL the patches released since the game's initial version. This is a practice similar to other game software producers to post a patch change list in the main folder. Before complaining about the lack thereof it might be better to ask first.
richfed wrote:Hey Captain ... despite some faults, it was definitely the right decision. Awesome game!!
Gray_Lensman wrote:Even if the manual contained EVERY detail that the game had to offer, new players would have just as much difficulty learning the game as they do now. This game is complicated to learn PURE and SIMPLE and the only way to get comfortable with it is to jump in and PLAY, PLAY, and PLAY AGAIN.
Pocus wrote:I believe that if we had more tutorials, it would be good for new players. No I'm not asking anyone to make them, it is a fact without afterthoughts.
Matin wrote:I don't have to be everything documentated....I think this makes a lot of the fun and makes the game really replayable to find out new things, by chance or by the forum. If every detail is documentated, you use everything in your first play and never discover new things which make you want to play the game again a different way..
Captain_Orso wrote:True and untrue at the same time. It's true that you don't have to know into the last detail how the combat odds are calculated to be able to put a stack together and make and attack with reasonable chances of success, thus trading detail for enjoyment. If however you spend a lot of time planing such an attack and to the best of your knowledge have a very good chance at succeeding with it, and then get slaughtered, I would assume that there are factors in the calculation that I haven't considered and I'd like to be able to learn out of this being then a focus-point of my interest. If the information is not available it turns the game into a guessing match, because there are so many unknowns.
Gray_Lensman wrote:Given the extremely limited manpower resources of AGEod combined with the complexity of the AACW game design itself, there is no way that a manual as thorough as one might expect from Microsoft or other large corporate software company is ever going to be forthcoming from AGEod in regards to AACW...
Gray_Lensman wrote:Even if the manual contained EVERY detail that the game had to offer, new players would have just as much difficulty learning the game as they do now. This game is complicated to learn PURE and SIMPLE and the only way to get comfortable with it is to jump in and PLAY, PLAY, and PLAY AGAIN.
Return to “Help to improve AACW!”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests