FOG Manual SUCKS! You Slitherine

bburke98 · Post by **bburke98** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:30 am

Quite frankly, for the amount of money I spent on FOG (over $100) I am really pissed off that they could not include an excellent manual to explain the rules. I understand the basic game mechanics but details are lacking. If Slitherine is serious about customer satisfaction they should listen to their customers. One issue that echoes among folks that own the digital version of FOG is that....THE MANUAL SUCKS!!!

So a question to you Slitherine developers...are you going to revamp the manual so that newcomers to FOG digital and fully understand the game mechanics? I would expect you to do so...since I shelled out alotta money. If I had known that rule explanations were lacking I would not of pissed my hard earned money into this game.

Schweinewitz · Post by **Schweinewitz** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:34 am

I also have some problems concerning the manual. I regard FoG as a kind of work in progress, so future patches may improve the manual too.

But couldn't you formulate your complaint a bit more politely? What kind of answer do you expect from the Slitherine team after insulting them?

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:46 am

Schweinewitz wrote:I also have some problems concerning the manual. I regard FoG as a kind of work in progress, so future patches may improve the manual too.

But couldn't you formulate your complaint a bit more politely? What kind of answer do you expect from the Slitherine team after insulting them?

Future patches may improve the manual? Be more polite? Despite many many requests, the developers have made very clear that their priority is cranking out more modules, not fixing the manual or other aspects of the game, such as fixing the lists to be able to create large armies with more lists.

At some point I got tired of the excuse of them being a small developer; lots of small developers spend a lot of time and effort to create useful manuals. For whatever reason, despite numerous player requests, they are not going to fix the manual, which I believe is a great disservice to paying customers.

maximvs · Post by **maximvs** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:26 pm

If you need a manual, why not buy the Field of Glory tabletop rulebook? After all, the PC game is just a computerised version of the tabletop rules.

As regards to the amount of money you've spent, you could also buy half a tank of fuel for a car, which would last about 2 hours (and be of dubious entertainment value!).

You can't expect a small company like Slitherine (probably less than 10 employees) to be able to match the output and quality of organisations such as Blizzard (probably several thousand employees). I bet Blizzard make enough money every second to run Slitherine for a hundred years!

Have you looked at these two sites?

http://fog-pc-wiki.wikispaces.com/

http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... index.aspx

I think they will go some way to give you what you need!

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:28 pm

I agree that the request is not framed in the best way. If framed as a polite but insistent request it SHOULD get a valid response.

I don't think that the responses here are what is required, however helpful they may be trying to be. If you have shelled out 100 bucks for a game, you have a reasonible expectation of a good manual. I have the FoG rules, all bar one of the supplements and have been part of the beta process for both the tabletop game and the PC game so I can look at the rules tabletop rules for things. However they don't work exactly the same as the PC game and the differences are material. In any event to tell someone who has shelled out 100 bucks that he needs to spend more money to effectively get a manual is not really on.

I work in the IT industry so I know how much effort it takes to write a good user manual. However it really is worth the effort as it both cuts down the number of queries posted (or at least enables you to reply RTFM) and increases user statisfaction and recommendation rates. For the tabletop game, one of FoG's major selling points is that you can get help and your questions answered. This somewhat applies to the PC game. However there is a FAQ for the table top game, which would noit be required for the PC game with a good online manual.

Next time I see one of the Slitherine bunch I will raise this and see what response I get. Might be a month or two but I will post whatever they say here.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:57 pm

I assume you've read through the help files in game? They cover all the basics you need to know. A lot of people have said they want more detail but as some suggest the details of the combat mechanics are handled in a 200 page rule book and although some of it does not apply, getting that all converted to the PC version is a very difficult task as the rules continually get tweaked and do not match the tabletop exactly. You do not need to know the details to play which is one of the strengths of the digital version, and if you want to see the details you can turn the detailed feedback panel on.

Suggesting we have not fixed issues is a bit misleading to say the least. Just because we have not added a particular feature you want does not mean we have not fixed issues. If there are any bugs let us know and we will fix them. Allowing larger armies is a design change that has enormous implications and requires a lot of testing so it is not a high priority for us. We have added features we see as much more valuable such as enhanced tournament support, terrain selection and much more. Not everyone wants these but we do what we think the most will benefit from.

We did have someone try and write a manual a few months ago but because of the scale of the task the project fell through. If there are any areas that are unclear let us know and we'll expand them and answer queries or other players here will be able to.

Hope that clarifies.

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:58 pm

maximvs wrote:If you need a manual, why not buy the Field of Glory tabletop rulebook? After all, the PC game is just a computerised version of the tabletop rules.

As regards to the amount of money you've spent, you could also buy half a tank of fuel for a car, which would last about 2 hours (and be of dubious entertainment value!).

You can't expect a small company like Slitherine (probably less than 10 employees) to be able to match the output and quality of organisations such as Blizzard (probably several thousand employees). I bet Blizzard make enough money every second to run Slitherine for a hundred years!

Have you looked at these two sites?

http://fog-pc-wiki.wikispaces.com/

http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... index.aspx

I think they will go some way to give you what you need!

I agree with the original sentiment (although not the tone, though I can understand the frustration) and to say that having spent many 10's of pounds, euros or dollars that the customer should have to buy a supplementary article to another game is bizarre. The TT and game are the same in principle, but there are many differences that mean the TT rulebook just doesn't meet the need.

The links quoted are worth a read, but Slitherine should address the manual issue. Maybe not to address tactics, but the basic rules need reviewing and improving. A product should be fit for purpose and the rulebook is part of the product. The game is great, the rulebook is substandard.

blastpop · Post by **blastpop** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:09 pm

I like the game and play it off and on, but the lack of reasonable documentation trying to figure some aspects of the game makes me scratch my head at times. Seems to be the one of those loose ends...

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:19 pm

The issue is you don't need to know any of these details to play. I can understand some people want this detail but we've never provided it in any game we have released and most other games don't either. The game is completely playable without it so it was never seen as a requirement to ad more details to the manual. We just feel we can add more value with features than documentation.

The biggest issue is people don't understand the probability. The % chance to win is just that - a % chance to win. If it says 95% it means 5%, or 1 in 20 times you'll lose this fight. 95% does not mean you cant lose. A lot of studies have been done on this and its all to do with peoples perception of randomness. They are fine when they are lucky and win things they shouldn't but not when they lose things they feel they should win, even when they are well within the bounds of probability.

blastpop · Post by **blastpop** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:31 pm

iainmcneil wrote:The issue is you don't need to know any of these details to play. I can understand some people want this detail but we've never provided it in any game we have released and most other games don't either. The game is completely playable without it so it was never seen as a requirement to ad more details to the manual. We just feel we can add more value with features than documentation.

The biggest issue is people don't understand the probability. The % chance to win is just that - a % chance to win. If it says 95% it means 5%, or 1 in 20 times you'll lose this fight. 95% does not mean you cant lose. A lot of studies have been done on this and its all to do with peoples perception of randomness. They are fine when they are lucky and win things they shouldn't but not when they lose things they feel they should win, even when they are well within the bounds of probability.

With all due respect, my feeling is that not knowing some of the ins and outs makes me wonder, am I doing something substantially wrong? Am I loosing games since I didn't pickup on some tactic or combination of things I am not aware of? I have lost most of my multiplayer games and in some cases was doing well in the scenario to quickly have it go south. Hmmm, what did I do wrong or is my opponent that much a better player or is it come down simply to scenario balance?

These are my essential concerns.

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:42 pm

Given how good our community is, I would suggest just asking your opponent what they capitalised on. Most will be happy to let you know where (or if!) you slipped up.

Cheers

Pip

blastpop · Post by **blastpop** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:48 pm

pipfromslitherine wrote:Given how good our community is, I would suggest just asking your opponent what they capitalised on. Most will be happy to let you know where (or if!) you slipped up.

Cheers

Pip

Not the kind of answer I was looking for. It is a glib off the cuff and ill considered response to a reasonable customer concern/problem. It might have been better if I received no response.

Now I'll probably be ignored...

Another point- it would be better to say we have little or no intention of changing our documentation style in a reasonably conspicuous place instead of having this come up on a constant basis.

Now that I know and understand this it will be a factor that I weigh whether I decide to make a particular Slitherine purchase.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:07 pm

All the game mechanics actually are in the manual (and yes there are some things that are opaque and a few things that are just wrong) Blastpop, your post seemed to indicate you were more looking for tactical tips and advise , not specific rules ?'s, so I think that is why you got the answere as provided. A game like this has so many variables that I dont think you could write an all encombassing "guide" anyhow, that is what experiance, player feedback (and the wiki) are for. I cant think of any company that prints a real strategy guide for free .

blastpop · Post by **blastpop** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:13 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:All the game mechanics actually are in the manual (and yes there are some things that are opaque and a few things that are just wrong) Blastpop, your post seemed to indicate you were more looking for tactical tips and advise , not specific rules ?'s, so I think that is why you got the answere as provided. A game like this has so many variables that I dont think you could write an all encombassing "guide" anyhow, that is what experiance, player feedback (and the wiki) are for. I cant think of any company that prints a real strategy guide for free .

Not looking for a strategy guide... I'm looking for how things work a bit more, so I can understand it. Not everyone learns the same way. There are many board wargames that have ill organized rules and no matter how you try to understand work through them, they just don't "click" so to speak, while others are a snap. Mechanically I understand this game, but if you know why things kind of occur the way they do, the decision process is less fuzzy and more sure footed.

Its not a lot of fun to keep getting the tar kicked out of you and no real solution to solve it. I know, guard your flanks, fight battles that are advantageous and all that...

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:40 pm

maximvs wrote:
You can't expect a small company like Slitherine (probably less than 10 employees) to be able to match the output and quality of organisations such as Blizzard (probably several thousand employees). I bet Blizzard make enough money every second to run Slitherine for a hundred years!

But who is comparing Slitherine to Blizzard? Just look at the manuals prepared for War in the East or any of the Combat Mission games, also by very small developers by the way, to see how seriously some game developers take manuals.

And the argument that you don't really "need" a manual to play a computer wargame is pretty weak; its like saying you only need "guidelines" instead of specific rules for the TT version, because players can sort of connect the dots themselves, surely that is "playable" as well?

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:48 pm

iainmcneil wrote: Suggesting we have not fixed issues is a bit misleading to say the least. Just because we have not added a particular feature you want does not mean we have not fixed issues. If there are any bugs let us know and we will fix them. Allowing larger armies is a design change that has enormous implications and requires a lot of testing so it is not a high priority for us. We have added features we see as much more valuable such as enhanced tournament support, terrain selection and much more. Not everyone wants these but we do what we think the most will benefit from.

I assume that your comments are directed at me...actually I never said that you have not fixed any issues, you have surely fixed many bugs and added many features, some of which I liked, some of which I didn't.

But I have never seen any comment about why allowing larger armies has such "enormous implications" and when I bought the game didn't understand that most armies would be capped at 600-700 pts. My understanding is that people enlarge armies in the TT version all the time just by adding more of whatever troops they want, why should it be different on the PC? After all, the number of soldiers is supposedly completely notional, so why does it matter how many BGs I have, as long as the proportions of troop types remain the same.

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:11 pm

blastpop wrote:
pipfromslitherine wrote:Given how good our community is, I would suggest just asking your opponent what they capitalised on. Most will be happy to let you know where (or if!) you slipped up.

Cheers

Pip
Not the kind of answer I was looking for. It is a glib off the cuff and ill considered response to a reasonable customer concern/problem. It might have been better if I received no response.

Now I'll probably be ignored...

Another point- it would be better to say we have little or no intention of changing our documentation style in a reasonably conspicuous place instead of having this come up on a constant basis.

Now that I know and understand this it will be a factor that I weigh whether I decide to make a particular Slitherine purchase.

It was an answer to a specific question. It certainly wasn't glib. People want more details of the model, and we hear that. But we're pretty clear that it's not something we have a ton of bandwidth for and we prioritise other things. We're happy to answer questions and queries, and there is a ton of detail from the community. I understand that we're not likely to change peoples' minds on wanting this info, but we do try and be transparent.

Cheers

Pip

almal59 · Post by **almal59** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:25 pm

There seems to be multiple arguments here. Let me see if I can ask this question in a different way.

Does Slitherine believe that the documentation provided with FOG consitiutes a complete, detailed and comprehensive game manual? (for purposes of this question I am not including the forums or any rules websites)

If the answer is yes, then the argument should be about what consitiutes "complete, detailed and comprehensive".

If the answer is no, then it is reasonable for your customers to ask if they are being taken advantage of given the cost of the game.

bburke98 · Post by **bburke98** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:38 pm

iainmcneil wrote:The issue is you don't need to know any of these details to play. I can understand some people want this detail but we've never provided it in any game we have released and most other games don't either. The game is completely playable without it so it was never seen as a requirement to ad more details to the manual. We just feel we can add more value with features than documentation.

The biggest issue is people don't understand the probability. The % chance to win is just that - a % chance to win. If it says 95% it means 5%, or 1 in 20 times you'll lose this fight. 95% does not mean you cant lose. A lot of studies have been done on this and its all to do with peoples perception of randomness. They are fine when they are lucky and win things they shouldn't but not when they lose things they feel they should win, even when they are well within the bounds of probability.

I completely disagree. Details are important to understand the mechanics and why events occur in game the way they do. More importantly, Slitherine is charging premium money for a PC game and expanded modules that are not graphics intensive, does not involve 3-D modeling to represent terrain and units. The LEAST Slitherine can do when charging over $130 for FOG and expanded modules is to provide an excellent, written manual. The meat and potatoes of this game lies in the mechanics and how combat is resolved and how other modifiers influence the outcome of combat. As it stands, the "Help" section is poorly written.

Slitherine, stop the pathetic excuses and start listening to your customers. I am not going to purchase the Table Top Rules when the game mechanics should be explained in detail in a well, written manual.

I propose to the community members that we start a petition and demand a well, written manual. After all, Slitherine is charging premium money and the LEAST they could do is provide a well, written manual.

borsook79 · Post by **borsook79** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:02 pm

iainmcneil wrote: The biggest issue is people don't understand the probability. The % chance to win is just that - a % chance to win. If it says 95% it means 5%, or 1 in 20 times you'll lose this fight. 95% does not mean you cant lose. A lot of studies have been done on this and its all to do with peoples perception of randomness. They are fine when they are lucky and win things they shouldn't but not when they lose things they feel they should win, even when they are well within the bounds of probability.

I'd like to treat this comment in a more general way - You are absolutely right Ian but I believe part of the problem is the way games (and I mean games not just this one) present the results. If you have 95% chance of winning and then lose... it's hard to accept because this is what the game tells you - that you lost. With this type of probability failure should mean that something unexpected and unusual happened. I believe players would react differently when presented with a more detailed description of such an event.