RTFM?

[c3k]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Damn...I have been trying to maneuver my ships into that "notch" for five years.

[thewood1]

Well, I have the word docs for all the updates and FAQ that I scraped off the Warfaresims site that I compiled into a pdf. I'll send those to anyone that wants to start assembling those into an organized doc. The youtube videos that Baloogan has on youtube could be assembled as a list with links and a description of its topic. I think new tutorials are in development.

So that's a start. Someone want to start with collating the info in the docs?

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

But yeah - ultimately we, the community, should be able to do this.

Take a look at my post above from yesterday. I am proposing a professional approach combining the available resources: text, tutorials, and videos into something better than the individual parts. Yeah, its easy to spend other people's money on a great copy editor. But Apache is asking for new ideas to make the product more accessible. Doing the same old thing relying on the community might not get them where they want to go.

Kevin

[thewood1]

So I guess I can scratch you off the volunteer list.

Look, there has been a lot of gnashing of teeth over the state of the manual. Any new "professional" project is going to take time and money. In the meantime, because some people think this is a crisis in which the very existence of the forum is in jeopardy, let's get what is available organized.

I already started it. Its going to take months, maybe years, to get a new manual, new tutorials, and new videos. So lets use the existing docs as a stop gap to draw in those supposed "outliers" and make everyone's life easier. The current state is actually not that bad. If you take the manual and add in info from the FAQ and the patch notes, you would have a pretty darned complete mechanics manual. If someone is ambitious, you can add in examples as needed. But I think just starting with the a consolidation and organization of the three main pieces of documentation, manual, FAQ, and patch notes, would be a huge headstart. I would think a simple listing of the Baloogan videos with descriptions and links would a pretty simple task for someone.

Frankly, I don't see how this can hurt. Let the devs go all professional on a new manual if they want. In the meantime, to save the forum, let's get our act together. If the devs think this is a wasted effort, they can let us know.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin
... That said, Command would be a challenge for any editor or technical writer to tackle – even a pro. But it’s something to consider. The “Idiots” is just an example of a form of technical writing for the general public who want to come up to speed quickly on challenging topic. I believe that's the objective Apache has in mind.

I see your point - pros will almost always do a better job than amateur volunteers. But that costs money, and probably a fair amount of interaction from the devs. Then the question is if that resource commitment is worth it for the benefit it brings. It could be that a community guide is adequate (as well as free).

I'd suggest that a community approach could be tried first, at least up to certain level, and if the results aren't sufficient then the devs could choose to use professionals. That has to be their call.

As CMANO is large and complex, I think it's only realistic for an "idiots" guide to teach the basics, though that's still quite a lot. I reckon there comes a bite point for players when they "get it", and afterwards are able to learn by themselves. Any guide should aim to take the player to that point.

[kevinkins]

[/quote]

So I guess I can scratch you off the volunteer list.

Are you putting together a real volunteer list or just being silly?

Anyway ... leave it be and let Apache read the posts/ideas and decide how the pros will go about configuring all the learning tools into something better than what the developers feel are available today. It's their product. That's the reason for the OP. I sense a bit of urgency on their part.

[thewood1]

As I said in my post. I'll help organize it. Let's get it going. I am traveling right now, but when I get back to my home laptop, I can send the word docs to anyone. And an organized list of the existing videos, and maybe even tutorials can be done any time.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: kevinkin
Anyway ... leave it be and let Apache read the posts/ideas and decide ...

Agreed.

[thewood1]

But this is something we can do anyway. Its all there.

[guanotwozero]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
But this is something we can do anyway. Its all there.

Maybe, but this is Apache's thread and so we shouldn't steal his thunder.

If it gets to a point where we'e asked to contribute effort to an agreed plan, then we can proceed.

[thewood1]

While he started the thread, I detected a sense of urgency from others. I can start a new thread and ask for volunteers. I'll start a new thread and load the word docs in the first post and ask for volunteers. If Apache is doing something that is more creative or more professional, this project can move forward should be done pretty quickly if we get 6-7 people on it. And looking at the comments in this and other threads, there seems to be a real demand to get something up as quickly as possible.

When I get back home on Wed., I'll put up the word docs and we can assign volunteers to different chapters.

[guanotwozero]

I'd still say hold fire - even if there is some urgency, any plan should be agreed by the devs. It has to be their call.

But do keep that enthusiasm! [;)]

[thewood1]

As I said, the devs read the forums. I dropped a PM, so should get a response about it. I work with publishing as part of my day job and can make sure all rights are reserved to publishers.

Unless I hear differently, I'll move forward. I am assuming as I move forward, without an issue with the devs, I can expect a couple of you guys to help. So if we just get a couple more, that should be enough.

[guanotwozero]

Bear in mind there may already be a plan with resources committed, and they want feedback to finesse/detail it further.

Any effort made outwith that could be wasted, or even worse, a distraction from where they want to take it.

I intend to wait for their direction; suggest you do too.

[kevinkins]

with all due respect, I think this endeavor should be lead by the Developers not by the Community. Command is Warfaresim's product. It's their baby. It's their commercial product. Sure we can all chip in as beta testers always do. But Warfaresims has to define the project and decide what the new learning format is supposed to look like. Copy and pasting existing text and throwing links to tutorials and youtube videos into a PDF is not what I think they are looking for. I think they are looking for a major overhaul to the learning process. All the existing learning material is critical, but it will only make a big difference in the hands of someone skilled in technical writing and digital publishing. When you define a project and contract it out with timing, the project will get done. Our Community has real life priorities that will get in the way of finishing anything in a timely manner. I think Apache is trying to define the project and let's see what comes out of this discussion. For the Community to to run off on its own might be a waste of time right now.

[$trummer]

Early in the Beta I PM'ed one of the devs and offered to "clean up" the manual gramatically as it was a bit rough around the edges and this is my area of expertise. They were quite interested in the idea for a while but it petered out. There's no doubt at all that an updated manual and a coordinated push to organise and enhance the game's training materials would be welcome, from either the devs or the community. I can still proofread and correct but I am not nearly competent enough in the game to have any more expert a role in the proceedings.

[Rory Noonan]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the responses!

It seems like the consensus is tutorial scenarios > manual > videos, which is interesting (and somewhat relieving) because I expected it would be videos > tutorials > manual.

I've got another 4 submarine scenarios just in the final stages of testing which should be out in the next day or two; beyond that there's another 4 in production (bringing the total to 12).

Personally the idea of re-writing the manual, or expanding it significantly, is quite daunting. I'm much more comfortable with writing tutorial scenarios and perhaps making some quick videos (although no firm plans for that as of yet).

Gunner98 has the strike side of things well covered with his excellent Strike Tutorial set, submarines are getting a proper treatment with 12 tutorials, what other topics are of interest? I was thinking perhaps air-to-air warfare, and I saw some mention of confusion over the cargo model so that is likely to get a tutorial.

Any other requests?

I am doing this as a personal project, just to clarify.

[JWW]

Tutorials. More tutorials. Like the sub tutorials that came with Silent Service. More tutorials on more aspects of the game. Tutorials for Dummies. I put myself in the Dummy category with this game, but I love playing the small scenarios. In that respect, more small scenarios with tutorial-like guidance.

[HalfLifeExpert]

Well this thread certainly got quite large very quickly. I've not read all of it at this time, but I wanted to put down some thoughts on OP and some of the early comments.

But before I go there, what does RTFM stand for? I literally have no idea, and I don't know if any of the posts in this thread explain it, so forgive me for my apparent ignorance on that acronym.

Anyway....

For starters, I think a major overhaul of the basic manual is in order, it should be updated to account for the major changes to CMANO since it's last printing, which was quite a while ago. This includes explaining the CoW features and how to access them. F

An updated manual should also strive to make it perfectly clear that new features may be added and give a link to the Manual Addendum page.


The addition of the Strike and Submarine tutorials are great, and more tutorials like them would be very helpful in the future.

I think that basically overall, there is no type of learning resource that should NOT be created, be it by the developers or the community.

But to put down something more specific, I think a sort of open source glossary on CMANO relevant acronyms and terms would be pretty helpful, something much larger than the glossary in the main manual, to include things like BARCAP, CIWS, CVBG and hull type designations (SSBN,CG,AGI etc)

Think of it as a sort of universal 'dictionary' for terms and acronyms. I know it would be a major undertaking, but it's all about short explanations for things, not long paragraphs, such as:

SSBN: Ballistic Missile Submarine that is Nuclear powered

CIWS: Close In Weapon System; a rapid fire cannon mainly used against incoming missiles

BARCAP: Barrier Combat Air Patrol; a CAP that is generally placed between a Carrier group and a likely approach direction of enemy aircraft.

Goblin: An unidentified underwater contact

Skunk: An unidentified surface contact

And it would be divided into categories instead of a long alphabetical list of everything.


Now i'd like to comment on Wood's statement in this thread, post #16:

And now we come to my main point.

"Impatient players"

This is the problem. When people come in and ask about the game, they will get an almost universal response that the game isn't for everyone. If you want to jump right in and start playing complicated scenarios, you will be disappointed and frustrated. In the old 1-10 Avalon Hill game complexity rating system, this is a 12. Even the most simple scenario is more complicated than 95% of the PC games out there.

I remember one of the first reviewers panned Command because the screen was so cluttered when he played. He started out with a large scenario and didn't know about the map options. He never read the manual, played a tutorial, or even played around with the options. He just plowed in and then panned the game.

Experienced players will help, but at some point, even the most charitable player will eventually throw their hands up in the air in their own frustration if the new player isn't willing to do some basic work to understand naval warfare and the game. The results of those encounters are scattered over the five year history of this forum. I came to the conclusion a few years ago its better to confront that issue early and upfront. Sometimes its painful and not pretty, but it keeps the forum from degenerating like it has several times in the past.

I don't think its the devs responsibility or duty to spend an inordinate amount of time with "impatient players". I don't want them spending their time that way. I want them adding features and developing DLC. The documentation is actually, in its raw form, very good and complete. It definitely could be organized and consolidated, but its there. There are probably close to 20 tutorials in the game and on the forums. There are dozens of videos. No matter how many you build, the player still has to have the ambition to use them.

I mean, we still have players to this day that bring problems to the forum without a save. There is an entire thread on new players and asking for help. No one gets hammered for asking a question. But asking a question and then not taking advantage of the lesson learned does cause frustration. The people I like helping are people with a question that takes what you say and goes and tries it and does some research on it. This is a game that requires learning, training, patience, and a good understanding of the resources that are at hand to help.

Good tutorials and documentation are always welcome, but still only help to a point. And keeping them up to date and organized is a lot of work. There was a discussion about a year after release about the devs spending time on manuals. The general consensus was that as long as we know where to look, the players would rather time be spent on development. I would like to see the community, with help from the devs, tale all the existing docs and get them into shape for new users. We can solve this is we want to have a little ambition.

There will always be some players that will never get CMANO at any level. That has to be accepted. This is by no means a game for everyone, or even the majority. In fact, I almost consider playing Command to be a hobby in of itself, and that's without any scenario creation (based on my experience).

I think that in terms of introducing new players, the most paramount task is to effectively convey to them exactly what Command is, and what one has to understand before entering it's world, and it is by no means a simple task.

That is the core purpose behind my Steam Guide which I will link here for those who have not seen it: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... 1081327870

Section 3 even explicitly states that one needs patience to play CMANO.

The intention of this is not to directly teach you how to play, but to more fully understand what it is you are getting into. A sort of bridge between the product page and everything else. I determined that myself in the time before I got CMANO by studying the manual and watching Let's plays as well as Baloogan's videos. And upon getting CMANO, I fully understood that I needed to work within my limited knowledge and build up my own capabilities at my own pace.

I do share Wood's frustration at players who with this, as well as other games, who fail to do much if any research on games before buying them. To me that is just lunacy. There is practically unlimited information available for free for many games out there, CMANO included, and there is simply no excuse in this day and age, in my opinion, for complaining about not understanding a game you just bought on a whim without any research on your own part.

[Rory Noonan]

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert

Well this thread certainly got quite large very quickly. I've not read all of it at this time, but I wanted to put down some thoughts on OP and some of the early comments.

But before I go there, what does RTFM stand for? I literally have no idea, and I don't know if any of the posts in this thread explain it, so forgive me for my apparent ignorance on that acronym.

Read The Full Manual

Or something close to that but perhaps one word substituted so as to be not quite so polite. It's often said in a dismissive or rhetorical sense; but it's also something that most people would expect that one would do before declaring something broken.

As for your Steam Guide I just read through that and it is brilliant, excellent work. I'll definitely be linking people to that in the future!