Jump to content



Photo

FAQ update thread


  • Please log in to reply
59 replies to this topic

#21 Solairflaire

Solairflaire

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:20 PM

A link to a forum discussion shorty after the latest FAQ came out. There was some discussion about  possible FAQ questions to send starting near the end of page 7. Link goes to page 10. Figured it was relevant to look at for anyone working on a new FAQ.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp



#22 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 27 September 2010 - 06:43 PM

Solairflaire said:

A link to a forum discussion shorty after the latest FAQ came out. There was some discussion about  possible FAQ questions to send starting near the end of page 7. Link goes to page 10. Figured it was relevant to look at for anyone working on a new FAQ.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Yep, thanks. That one is on the list already.
We have over 30 sets of Q+& and discussion notes like this for the next FAQ prepared on a google group (including large monster movement one linked above). We have been working on them for the last three weeks or so and are just finalising how to bring them 'back' to 'general public' for discussion and refinement before re-collating them (possibly here) to send to FFG for the next FAQ. I guess there will probably be some action within the next week?

Most are from SoB (the other sets have had multiple FAQ revisions to be cleaned up already) but a few, like this, are major general cases that ought to be cleaned.
The plan is pretty much to throw open each to discussion in a separate thread (possibly on a sub forum here so as not to clutter up this main forum). At the end of each thread we should have a refined solution (mostly Q+As) that we can eventually send to FFG. We do the work, they make the decisions - with the best information and potential wordings that we can offer them.
The individual threads might only be opened a few at a time though, in order to keep 'focus' and not overwhelm with too many things to look at.
There should still be room for 'new' questions or discussions as well.



#23 Big Remy

Big Remy

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,890 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 01:37 AM

I regrettably will not have time to actively participate in the FAQ update this time around.  I just started a new job with a long commute leaving me short on spare time for working on the FAQ Q&A.

I will say that I think with the crew currently working on it will probably do a more complete job than I could.



#24 Parathion

Parathion

    Member

  • Members
  • 954 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 04:27 AM

Will all the GLoAQ answers that are currently missing in the FAQ be included in the new one? I suggested it last time, but it was not done. It is always a hassle to check both FAQ and the GLoAQ thread for relevant answers.

 

 



#25 James McMurray

James McMurray

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,228 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 05:44 AM

Parathion said:

Will all the GLoAQ answers that are currently missing in the FAQ be included in the new one? I suggested it last time, but it was not done. It is always a hassle to check both FAQ and the GLoAQ thread for relevant answers.

That would rock. I'd love to see the GLoAQ thread disappear entirely.



#26 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 02:20 PM

Parathion said:

Will all the GLoAQ answers that are currently missing in the FAQ be included in the new one? I suggested it last time, but it was not done. It is always a hassle to check both FAQ and the GLoAQ thread for relevant answers.

 

 

I don't know. (I suspect FFG won't go for that). Besides which, the thread would still be needed for new Answered Questions.
At worst we could ask for a new stickied GLOAQ thread with the first post the accummulation of the last GLOAQ thread. At least then you could just open the first page and do a word 'find'. 



#27 Parathion

Parathion

    Member

  • Members
  • 954 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 10:18 PM

Well, we could extract all the relevant Q&As from the GLoAQ thread and simply send them to FFG with the request to include them in the FAQ, right along with the set of new questions - there is no extra work for FFG included, if we assign the Q&As to the appropriate sections.



#28 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 28 September 2010 - 10:29 PM

Parathion said:

Well, we could extract all the relevant Q&As from the GLoAQ thread and simply send them to FFG with the request to include them in the FAQ, right along with the set of new questions - there is no extra work for FFG included, if we assign the Q&As to the appropriate sections.

Agreed, and I've made the extraction (cutting out some unnecessary parts and breaking multiple Qs into single Q+As where it seemed appropriate. Organisation will come later.

I can't see the GLOAQ disappearing as a resource though.



#29 James McMurray

James McMurray

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,228 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 03:34 AM

Corbon said:

Parathion said:

 

Well, we could extract all the relevant Q&As from the GLoAQ thread and simply send them to FFG with the request to include them in the FAQ, right along with the set of new questions - there is no extra work for FFG included, if we assign the Q&As to the appropriate sections.

 

 

Agreed, and I've made the extraction (cutting out some unnecessary parts and breaking multiple Qs into single Q+As where it seemed appropriate. Organisation will come later.

I can't see the GLOAQ disappearing as a resource though.

Why not? It's terrible design to have two FAQs, especially given FFG's lack of internal consistency in the past. Plus having only one place for Q&A postings means less work for them. Other than tradition, I can see no reason not to fold the two together and let the GLoAQ fade away. If it's job is done, let it rest. :)



#30 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 04:17 PM

James McMurray said:

Why not? It's terrible design to have two FAQs, especially given FFG's lack of internal consistency in the past. Plus having only one place for Q&A postings means less work for them. Other than tradition, I can see no reason not to fold the two together and let the GLoAQ fade away. If it's job is done, let it rest. :)

 

Because there will almost always be a need for a place to put 'new' or 'rediscovered' rulings that need some sort of official backup but haven;t made it to the FAQ.
We'll be trying, of course, but I don't imagine that the next FAQ will cover all possible issues.

SoB in particular still has a long way to go before being 'fixed' properly, even to the level that RtL is. I'm sure there are still level, rumour or keep issues that haven't come to attention yet simply because not many people have played them yet.

If FFG were willing to re-release the FAQ every time a new question came up, then the GLOAQ wouldn't be needed, I agree.
But they aren't, and I can't see that changing, so the GLOAQ will still have it's place, however annoying that might be.



#31 James McMurray

James McMurray

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,228 posts

Posted 29 September 2010 - 05:18 PM

It's easily doable.

1) Convert the FAQ to a php file instead of a pdf.

2) Put the rulings in a database.

3) Have a page where the rules guy(s) update the FAQ.

4) Instead of answering rules questions that are emailed in, answer them in the FAQ if they're not already covered by the rules. Then reply with a link to the FAQ answer.

You cut out the middle step, eliminate the chance that someone can give an official ruling that goes against a prior official ruling, and have the opportunity to add in all sorts of bells and whistles. It could track users by a cookie (if they've got them turned on) and highlight all new or changed rulings by checking a last-modified date. It could be editable on-the-spot by anyone who's logged in and has editing rights. Users could register for email updates whenever something changes.

Crowbarring dynamic data into flat files is 20th century technology. Why continue dancing with dinosaurs when modernizing will make things easier, cheaper, and more customer-friendly?

And yeah, I know you're not the guy who makes the decisions. I'm just shouting into the wind with my own personal pet peeves (the fallibility of duplication of effort and poor user experiences excused by "it's how we do it").



#32 Parathion

Parathion

    Member

  • Members
  • 954 posts

Posted 14 October 2010 - 10:10 PM

So, is there any work regarding a FAQ update going on behind the scenes?

If not, what is necessary to get the process going?



#33 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 14 October 2010 - 10:37 PM

Parathion said:

So, is there any work regarding a FAQ update going on behind the scenes?

If not, what is necessary to get the process going?

Not a lot right now.

We are waiting further response from FFG Anton, who promised to look into a subforum, is my understanding.



#34 Mcmanus

Mcmanus

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 15 October 2010 - 04:49 AM

I have sent some SoB questions to em and no answer, ever =S



#35 SoylentGreen

SoylentGreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 17 October 2010 - 10:01 AM

Corbon said:

Parathion said:

 

So, is there any work regarding a FAQ update going on behind the scenes?

If not, what is necessary to get the process going?

 

 

Not a lot right now.

We are waiting further response from FFG Anton, who promised to look into a subforum, is my understanding.

Yup - I am just waiting on a reply for the new forum still... I will email him again this week - see if we can't get this sub-forum rolling!



#36 SoylentGreen

SoylentGreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 19 October 2010 - 05:46 AM

We should have the sub-forum up today. Got a message from Anton.

I think we talked about moving a few of the items in at a time - so as to not overwhelm... but rather than 30-40 threads - we'll move over like 5 or so a week. :)



#37 SoylentGreen

SoylentGreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 373 posts

Posted 20 October 2010 - 10:42 AM

Excellent! the sub-forum has been made. I made the "purpose" post to hopefully keep it de-cluttered.

Start moving the topics over as soon as you like from the Google Group. Shoot me an email Corbon if you want - I have time tonight I can move some over.



#38 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 20 October 2010 - 04:02 PM

The first three threads are up in teh FAQ discussion sub-forum.

Only three to start with because two of them are biggies!

1. Issue of Whether the Revenge is sunk automatically during a TPK result in SoB. This is a fairly minor and easy issue, basically a yes/no question.

2. Odd shaped monster movement. this one was hashed out fairly thoroughly in this main forum several months back, but additional comment are still welcome.

3. Wall/door definitions. We've never had any. Do we need them? Read it and comment!



#39 Corbon

Corbon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,673 posts

Posted 24 October 2010 - 04:16 PM

Corbon said:

1. Issue of Whether the Revenge is sunk automatically during a TPK result in SoB. This is a fairly minor and easy issue, basically a yes/no question.

2. Odd shaped monster movement. this one was hashed out fairly thoroughly in this main forum several months back, but additional comment are still welcome.

3. Wall/door definitions. We've never had any. Do we need them? Read it and comment!

Three more threads up for FAQ discussion in the subforum.

4. Terrain - mostly clarification of the new terrain in SoB, but also an attempt to get the term 'terrain' clarified in general.

5. The Burning Bay/Sea SoB level. minor problems, unless your OL is clever and then they are major issues.

6. Tentacles, the Kraken and the Void. This is a big one for SoB players.

Its been generally disappointing at the low amount of commentary so far. I can't believe that the initial offerings can't be improved at all!
Perhaps no one cares any more - most SoB players have probably given it up as a lost cause (most issues are SoB related because it has many problems and older expansions have already had most of their issues cleared up), and everyone else has their own satisfactory house-rules for things like 'terrain' and 'large monster movement. ???



#40 Parathion

Parathion

    Member

  • Members
  • 954 posts

Posted 25 October 2010 - 12:49 AM

Most of your write-ups seem comprehensive and well thought-through to me. Take the silence in most threads as approval, not as a lack of interest.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS