Editor improvement suggestions.

[ezechiel 0]

Icones of the unit/building at his REAL SIZE in the map editor, for a better placement.

(you know the 'ok i have two fences here and here, separated by one meter > go ingame > oh boyys...)

[dmarkwick 261]

Icones of the unit/building at his REAL SIZE in the map editor, for a better placement.

(you know the 'ok i have two fences here and here, separated by one meter > go ingame > oh boyys...)

The 3D editor will cure that :)

[Tonci87 163]

Make a option if you want the placed AI to stand/crouch/prone

[ziiip 1]

I would like to have two separate roll-down list for factions and "affiliation". I mean you could pick a faction from the list (eg USA, Iran etc) and you could pick wether the side will be OPFOR, BLUFOR etc.

I know you can just group some soldiers to a higher-ranked dude on the other side, but you still cannot talk to them and their name shows up in red atm.

[wamingo 1]

Big Dawg, Your definition of majority is mad.

With all due respect to the creative community, the real majority doesn't pay good money for games that promises only "extensibility".

In your own signature you encourage everyone to use the sandbox features of the game, yet you're not willing to lend the very people you speak to, the tools that would allow them to do just that. You simply demand everyone become more advanced users, instead.

But you know full well that's a tall order.

DMarkwick gets it:

Yes, simpler than that

That is what people will pay money for. The flattening of the learning curve and reduction of workload.

[johanna 11]

This may sound wacko but, be able to connect to a friends computer and make missions together, with two mouse pointers... :cool:

[-)rStrangelove 0]

This may sound wacko

It is. Its like saying 'i'm playing ArmA on 3DFx card' :D

[neokika 62]

I expect you didn't really get the question.

I guess I didn't, what I understood from your post was that you did not know where to find the class names...

Now, are the players getting lazy?

What I mean is, people in this thread seem not willing to learn at all, and ask for stupid stuff so it makes it easier for them, without learning the basics.

Do you expect a mission maker to make good missions without the basic knowledge?

Yes, that is what will happen since even putting a scripting command in init of a unit or whatever, they feel is too hard? :confused:

_neo_

Edited June 22, 2011 by neokika

[dmarkwick 261]

I guess I didn't, what I understood from your post was that you did not know where to find the class names...

where is a fledgling editor playing about in the game's editor supposed to get the weapon name?

... there you have it, I know where to get the class names, but what about a new player who, first time he is trying to modify a basic thing like loadout, cannot see any place in the editor that gives him a single clue? I don't consider it lazy to be able to find this stuff right in the editor.

Now, are the players getting lazy?

What I mean is, people in this thread seem not willing to learn at all, and ask for stupid stuff so it makes it easier for them, without learning the basics.

Do you expect a mission maker to make good missions without the basic knowledge?

Yes, that is what will happen since even putting a scripting command in init of a unit or whatever, they feel is too hard? :confused:

_neo_

There will always be need for scripting, but what I always found strange was that very basic mission editing tasks like loadouts (units, vehicles and ammo crates etc) should necessitate not only scripting, but research for class names also. The idea that it's lazy to have that basic stuff in the editor is like saying it's lazy that I am able to choose a vehicle/unit from the editor also. Some things are just an extension of what already exists.

Just as in the editor you can drop in any vehicle you like, so it should be in the unit properties window. In fact, treat it like a tiny editor, and have exactly the same loadout drop-down selections as the main editor has for vehicles. It's exactly the same principle.

In fact... every reducable item should have a tiny editor available for it. So even a weapon, when selected on the unit's loadout, can be accessed and modified, seeing as weapon modification is now confirmed :)

[becubed 24]

How will putting barriers in the way of people make the quality of missions higher?

Organising a players gear in game is easy, open the gear menu and select. It should be the same in the editor. No everyone wants to learn to code and some people just don't think that way. My brother would be a case in point.

You should be able to place a unit in 3D, equip them though the gear menu and set stance and some behaviour basics with a menu of choices.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

With all due respect to the creative community, the real majority doesn't pay good money for games that promises only "extensibility".

Extensibility is the entire purpose of the mission editor. If you are using it then you are extending the game.

If you don't want to put in the effort then why bother using it? It's sad how spoiled this community has become. IMO everyone should be glad just to have a mission editor (and a 3D editor comming in ArmA 3) that's so powerful. It's something BIS doesn't have to do...

[dmarkwick 261]

It's sad how spoiled this community has become.

I do feel that's a little unfair for what are only suggestions. The community will take whatever appears, and be grateful for it :)

[johanna 11]

)rStrangelove;1962460']It is. Its like saying 'i'm playing ArmA on 3DFx card' :D

for ever alone...:(

[neokika 62]

Extensibility is the entire purpose of the mission editor. If you are using it then you are extending the game.

If you don't want to put in the effort then why bother using it? It's sad how spoiled this community has become. IMO everyone should be glad just to have a mission editor (and a 3D editor comming in ArmA 3) that's so powerful. It's something BIS doesn't have to do...

I have to agree 100% on that.

I do feel that's a little unfair for what are only suggestions. The community will take whatever appears, and be grateful for it :)

I also agree with this, but there is a difference between dumb down the editing for the sake of people that don't wanna take the time to learn and a good work flow.

Let me give you an example, people seem to ask a lot for tasks being done in editor, while they forget the tasks features such as tasks per player/unit/group/side, local/global etc.

_neo_

Edited June 22, 2011 by neokika

[dmarkwick 261]

My own feeling is that there is a very large gap between dumbing down the editor, and making more basic stuff possible to do in the editor. There seems to be a general level of twitchyness on these boards that mistakes ease/accessibility/improvement for "dumbing down". I don't understand the objection myself, what's the fear? That someone "unsuitable" generates a decent mission before he should be able to? We're only talking about basic mission start content here, not enhanced communications or something.

[ryguy 10]

Yea, I think the editor needs more templates while at the same time still allowing the advanced scripting stuff. I mean honestly, think about how hard it is to do things like make a mission end when a town is clear of combatants- that shouldn't require any scripting or typing of code on my part!

Also, has an undo (Ctrl+Z) function already been suggested?

[wamingo 1]

words

There's clearly a difference between giving people ready tools and requiring people create their own.

And wanting to do more in less time does not equate to being lazy.

Finally, the editor is an advertised and important feature of arma, so yes, they most certainly do have to.

[katipo66 94]

Extensibility is the entire purpose of the mission editor. If you are using it then you are extending the game.

If you don't want to put in the effort then why bother using it? It's sad how spoiled this community has become. IMO everyone should be glad just to have a mission editor (and a 3D editor comming in ArmA 3) that's so powerful. It's something BIS doesn't have to do...

Spoiled! Lolz are you our Father? What do you mean by that.... Bs

[Joe98 92]

IMO everyone should be glad just to have a mission editor that's so powerful.

This thread is all about how to make it even more powerful.

-

to have a mission editor that's so powerful. It's something BIS doesn't have to do...

Yes they do!

Game developers start by developing the editor. From the editor they make the missions.

Manuals are designed to teach us how to control the soldiers, issue orders and fire weapons. Not about the editor.

Some games allow the public to use the editor and some games do not. The editor is not the central point of the game. That’s why editors are often hard use and why the editor manual is often poor.

So, the developers produce the editor first!

-

---------- Post added at 09:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 AM ----------

And if the developers improve the editor, it makes it that much easier for developers to make the missions so they are doing themselves a favour.

-

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I know BIS uses the editor, and I doubt these extra features will help them much.

It seems people making these suggestions want more of a mission wizard, not a powerful editor. IMO BIS should add control, not take it away. Of course if they can make the most commonly used features faster to use without introducing more clutter or removing control, I'm all for it. But these are not necessarily needed.

You may also ask why I don't think it's a good idea to simplify some of the more advanced/abstract mission design features (like "ambushes" or "helicopter insertions"). Well the problem I see is that it will give newcomers less incentive to actually understand how it works at a lower level (ex: through scripting), making them unable to improve it/fix it if it doesn't work for them. It would also mean people are using the exact same method for these things all of the time, which would result in less variety in the approach people take to solving these problems, which means people may not end up using the best approach for the job.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[ryguy 10]

Nobody asked for a "Mac editor" where everything is simplified and control is taken away. In the first place, there is control just not there if you don't study coding... Templates and wizards will fix that.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Templates and wizards will fix that.

See that's what I'm talking about. Templates and wizards are supposed to make things speedier, not necessarily fix things or give you an excuse not to learn how to do them yourself. If this is the kind of attitude people will take, I'd rather they not add them.

To summarize my concerns, I feel they risk making users stupider.

[dmarkwick 261]

To summarize my concerns, I feel they risk making users stupider.

I understand your points about encouraging new editors to discover scripting. But, it has to be said the editor itself does nothing in the way of facilitating this :)

I don't agree that increased accessibility is to be avoided in case it makes some people stupid. I might make the opposing statement that increased access opens the door for more people who might otherwise be frustrated at a lack of what might be described as basic options. I consider weapon loadout to be basic options.

I'm not sure anyone can really defend the non-development of a better editor. Just as by double-clicking a unit in the editor map opens up a dialogue box allowing you to change that unit, so too should double-clicking on the unit's weapon in that dialogue box open up another dialogue box where you can change that weapon.

Further, if you double-click a vehicle, you should have the opportunity to double-click the vehicle's units. The vehicle's dialogue box becomes a little editor for that vehicle, and so on down the chain, vehicle, unit, unit weapon. It seems so logical to have a nested dialogue box option for these actions that I literally cannot see any downside, even the making people stupider downside.

Edited June 23, 2011 by DMarkwick

[Tankbuster 1746]

I'm really with you on this DM, total sense.

The game has come a long way in the past 10 years and 2 days, but the editor is practically identical to the very first one we saw.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Its more userfriendly:

+ if one don't have to use other/third party editors for scripting etc

+ if basic features are easy + fast to use (ingame editor)

+ if advanced features can be customised easily (ingame editor)

+ if there is a build-in storage/database system to save/load snippets, loadout/gear...

+ if one is able to place stuff without troubles correctly in 3D editor (and it wont change position even slightly during save/load or in mission)

Sorry but some people seem to be stuck into old-fashioned programming and don't like to see proper working and flexible GUI's. The 80's/90's are gone - users are not dumber or stupid if they demand modern editing/scripting features.