This will go on until December 5th.

With all the commentary about the learning curve, and the amount of questions that get tossed onto the Gameplay forum, I'm tossing out a contest.

Make a FAQ that the Immortal staff feels like stickying, get a PBF. My goal is to come up with a forum of FAQs to replace the New Player Q&A forum. That means these need to be of high quality!

What sort of FAQs should we write?
- Class specifics (how do I play XXX, how do I defend against XXX)
- Analysis of class choices (legacies, edges, specializations, forms, etc)
- Newbie specific (basic re-gearing guide, how do I not get killed, I want to get into PK what should I do, how do I get into a cabal)
- Wands + Detect Artifact

When you submit something, I need a valid email address associated with it so I can contact you about a PBF for winning. I will make sure to remove it before posting anything.

Thanks Torak for the 2 you submitted...they were the only 2. I sent you a forum message, reply back with your PBF requests.

Ultimately, the long-term goal was to get the wiki going, and that is at least done.

I am working on one, it just takes a while to write everything if you want it to really be useful, and a lot of the time I find myself playing CF instead of doing it when I can find the time. But I'll submit it when I finish it, has nothing to do with getting a premium anyway. Just want to share the CF fun and some of the workload you guys put into this fun game.

I just found out about this, I never check this forum. Would you consider getting rid of this forum and just posting these things in the Announcement board to cut down on all the different places we're looking for threads?

Cheers,
Jhyrb

-Where are they submitted to? Posted here or emailed?
-Are the FAQs from qhcf a valid example? Can they be used here?

>-Where are they submitted to? Posted here or emailed?

Whichever is easier for you. If you email them, send them to me.

>-Are the FAQs from qhcf a valid example?

Yes.

>Can they be used here?

If you wrote them, absolutely.

I read the couple you've posted so far -- I don't know if Zulg is planning to unqueue them or do something else, so I'm not touching them for now.

I swear I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or rag on you specifically; you're just the first person to post something and probably this would come up with whoever did.

The thing that gives me pause is this: a lot of it's just wrong. Not "our opinions differ on how important X is" (although there's some of that too) but more like, you say something works a certain way, or a certain stat or skill is relevant to a situation, and I know for 100% sure that it doesn't/isn't.

I tend to think that trying to edit/correct someone's FAQ would result in me putting in more time/frustration/arguing than just writing my own, which I also generally don't want to do.

So the question I'd put to everyone is:

1) Do you see a good solution to this problem, and/or

2) Does it add value for us to post FAQs that aren't verified correct with a disclaimer (since, after all, even if a FAQ is let's say 25% wrong, there's still 75% of potentially useful information there), or do you think that does more harm than good in that we seem to endorse something that may be wrong?

Only approve ones that you think are 95% correct. This encourages less of the arrogant 'This is how a skill works' style of writing and more of the 'these are situations this skill will be useful' style.

One if specific and potentially very problematic. The other is vague, but still very helpful. You get FAQs with no number crunching or insanely silly detail, yet are helpful and productive toward getting x,y,z of a class explained.

Example:
1. Airshields block gas attacks and airspells, the greater shield blocks assassin kicks and will make you fly. So ignore stuff that makes you immune while you can fly like trip.

2. Airshields block air elemental attacks (buffet/cyclone, but not rending gale weapon attacks) and similar things (like dragons poison gas breath). The shield of winds, as the helpfile describes, stops tripping/stumbling attacks and can block kicks. This includes assassin kicks, and makes it a good counter to rising phoenix kick if it's being spammed.

The first is pointed and sharp but has misinformation, the second is vaguer but still gives you a good idea of what you're doing with your airshields.

I'd say approve anything greater than 75% accurate with ample disclaimers, and perhaps give the author permission to go back and redo them as clarifying facts come up.

If intelligent, diligent people can't figure out exactly what a skill does then a newbie has no chance of it and really being armed with 75% of the truth is better than the 10% they probably start with. Maybe that perpetrates some bad info, but so would sharing in game info anyway.

No one will ever figure out what some of these skills do with 100% accuracy without access to the code, it's just not going to happen. It's pretty damn difficult to set up extensive, controlled testing and keep to RP restrictions, deal with pk threats and even make sure you have all the resources on hand to test (i.e. someone with the appropriate skills or someone to test against.) Especially without exploiting OOC connections.

Let's face it, this game and it's mechanics is nebulous at best some times, and often downright murky. Take the big deal everyone thinks morale is. I read "making one succeed more readily with many skills and even learn faster" as pretty damn exciting and useful, personally. You have to read the forums and find the right post in what started out as an unrelated topic to find Nep's analysis that the sum total of morale can be at most 5% in ideal circumstances. One could argue the help files are already making it seem you 'endorse something that may be wrong' or at least misleading.

It adds a ton of value to collect information like this Morale clarification in a place people can see it, in my mind.

>You have to read the
>forums and find the right post in what started out as an
>unrelated topic to find Nep's analysis that the sum total of
>morale can be at most 5% in ideal circumstances. One could
>argue the help files are already making it seem you 'endorse
>something that may be wrong' or at least misleading.

Ironically, there you've already taken what I posted and unintentionally turned it into misinformation. I wasn't saying that morale in general could only swing that much, but rather that the boost to morale that you'd see from having a bard groupmate helping you out in the ways described would probably swing less than that.

>It adds a ton of value to collect information like this Morale
>clarification in a place people can see it, in my mind.

It does. Lots of information gets taken out of context, generalized when it shouldn't be, etc.

I'm not down on the idea of CF FAQs in general.

Don't spend a minute on fixing them if you don't want. Read all the ones you get. If any of them are accurate enough for you (whatever percentage that may be, it's obviously a subjective decision), post them. Don't post the ones that aren't accurate enough.

If none of the submissions is accurate enough for you, then don't post any. All you're out, the only downside, is the time it took to just read them, which isn't that much. The upside of course is having an faq you feel pretty good about.

p.s. I know there is a hidden downside, people will say "hey, why didn't you post mine?" and you'll just have to say it wasn't accurate enough, but thanks for the effort. Saying that's what you're going to do upfront, now, means it won't be a surprise later.

If you guys are endorsing these FAQs, they need to be as accurate as you can possibly make them. These ARE newbies who rely on them, not vets. So they won't know what is and isn't accurate, and if something incorrect causes problems, that'll probably make them bitter.

Barring Imm edits on the FAQs, you could just put a note before reading the FAQ, that none of the information within is verified by Imms so shouldn't be considered 100% accurate. Although that seems like it just doubles the information available on QHCF, which seems like a waste of time.

QHCF is great for discussing and guessing about information. Official forums should serve as a source of accurate information, not guesses.

Given that most FAQs are for relative newbies, the fact that a mechanic may be different than advertised doesn't make the FAQ pointless. I usually preface all my FAQs with something along the lines of "I may not be the best, but here's my advice and help from someone who has played the class a lot or a long time".

Sure, some veteran or immortal can point out "yeah, you're wrong here" but they don't really need the FAQ in the first place. A newbie may find out something different through their own experience but that's for them to figure out.

Another tidbit, the FAQ is on a wiki - they can edit it with a tag like . There's a reason that most video games have a wiki nowadays.....

In my opinion it shouldn't just be a few FAQs, it should be an official wiki with the mods being in charge of it. It'd make things like History/Leader list and such a whole lot easier to maintain - it wouldn't take much to move the other wiki over either. Some people have gone to great lengths to make some seriously nice maps as well - why they aren't officially supported is beyond understanding.

Disallow mechanical conversation about skills unless it specifically references a help file.

Newbs need guidance not grimoire's.

This depends on how greatly you value correctness of it...you could very well just delete the bad info and post it with being able to edit. only one review permitted...that is to say,you delete misinfo once, if they edit it should only be for grammar and continuity.

With this, I mean the portion below which you wrote:

>I tend to think that trying to edit/correct someone's FAQ
>would result in me putting in more time/frustration/arguing
>than just writing my own, which I also generally don't want to
>do.

Correcting/editing a well written text, even if erroneous, is generally easier than writing a new text. Errors and misconclusions can always be omitted from the end result.

Generally, it takes a few iterations to come up with a good text. In this case, it would be best to take the player contributions as your raw material and compose the FAQ based on the player contributions, combining multiple player-written FAQs with overlapping information. If you write a new FAQ instead of correcting someone else's, you'll make the mistakes of the new version and the end result is generally worse than what a second iteration would be, providing that the first was well enough written. I think that edited and combined versions of the player FAQs would be most beneficial to the newbies, providing that the Immortal staff is ready to put some work in it as well.

>Correcting/editing a well written text, even if erroneous, is
>generally easier than writing a new text. Errors and
>misconclusions can always be omitted from the end result.

In a vacuum, perhaps, but I was also factoring in the time it would take to defend my editing.

I've noticed as moderator that Americans in particular are touchy when you edit their posts, to the point of paranoia. This is why you should present it as FAQ comprised by you based on their submissions. This removes the need to defend your editing, as you can put up one explanatory post on how you're comprising the FAQ's. After that, there is no need explain the edits and people won't be so upset as you aren't presenting an edited version as their words, while still crediting them for the original work. That way, one post in advance should be enough defending and you can safely ignore the complaints or refer them to that one post if you feel obliged to reply.

What can we put in them though, and I know this is really a broad inquiry since only have so much knowledge.

If I were to do, say a bard faq, could I tell what the songs do exactly (easily learned but just wandering how much can be said), when to consider using them? Repertoire information? Instrument information? Basic gearing information? Weapon/armor choices with actual weapons/armor at hero? What tactics to use in and out of PK. Can I mention which edges are worth taking and which are not? I know what information would be useful, and what would have been nice to know that nobody really tells you.

I could write a fairly large faq but a lot of it may not be appropriate. Or can we just write a large one and you imms remove/redact parts of it that are too much?

Thanks.

>What can we put in them though, and I know this is really a
>broad inquiry since only have so much knowledge.
>
>If I were to do, say a bard faq, could I tell what the songs
>do exactly (easily learned but just wandering how much can be
>said),

I'm good with that.

>when to consider using them?

That too.

>Repertoire information?

Sure. Pros/Cons of each, etc.

>Instrument information? Basic gearing information?

My only concern really is tossing in identify item lists, but I have no problem with basics (again...think what someone new to the class really needs).

>Weapon/armor choices with actual weapons/armor at hero?

Sure.

>What tactics to use in and out of PK.

Sure.

>Can I mention which edges are
>worth taking and which are not?

I have no problems with personal observations on edges.

>I know what information would
>be useful, and what would have been nice to know that nobody
>really tells you.

Ultimately I'm looking for things to help out anyone new to a class without posting spoilers. As far as classes go, there really aren't many spoilers since it's mostly observations unless you start going into where to get things (specific prep lists, area explores, identify lists, etc).

>I could write a fairly large faq but a lot of it may not be
>appropriate. Or can we just write a large one and you imms
>remove/redact parts of it that are too much?

I think that is also a good plan. If there is something completely inappropriate I'll edit it out.

>Thanks.

Thank you for the good questions!