Updated Manual?

[Gandalf Parker]

At the time that the manual was being created I got the impression that it wasnt supposed to explain all that. The devs, and Kristoffer especially, seemed to want the players to play for the info. The manual only had to tell them how to play the game, not how to win it. I remember arguments given on how long it would take the community to break down and make the formulas available. (it did take longer than predicted)

So I would tend to fault the manual only for things that are wrong. And only if they were wrong at the time it was created, not changed later. Its all impressions unless someone wants to create some actual percentages but my impression is that the manual is 99% good. That is if you arent expecting a strategy guide or a complete code breakdown. That was left to us to do and I think we did it very well.

Of course that disregards what its like to use it playing with any mod that massively changes the game. In that case the manual is probably not going to provide much.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

So I would tend to fault the manual only for things that are wrong. And only if they were wrong at the time it was created, not changed later. Its all impressions unless someone wants to create some actual percentages but my impression is that the manual is 99% good. That is if you arent expecting a strategy guide or a complete code breakdown. That was left to us to do and I think we did it very well.

Feh. It's not a matter of fault. Who cares which problems in the manual are justified or not? This thread is about the state of the manual now, not when it was written. Has it been updated? No. Does that mean it isn't reliable? Yes.

This does not indicate a judgement of the devs, Bruce Geryk or anyone else. It definitely raises the topic of documentation generally, but that discussion does not have to involve finding fault.