The trouble with getting people into Arma

[metalcraze 290]

By making it easier to use for one thing.

How exactly?

What CAN be done, however, is better labelling, and improving the context sensitive command bar.

This I can agree on - if you are talking about that command bar you get whenever you select units - I never use it because it's messy. Like when I want units to go somewhere during combat stupid context-insensitive command menu switches to "attack" cursor by default if enemies are within 100m of that point.

If I click "Flank Right", I would expect the Unit to attack its current target, and try to flank it from the right. Instead, the Unit takes up flank guard to the right, and stays there.

If you'll use it together with "Engage" you will get what you want - the unit will move 50m to the right and attack an enemy from there completely with moving at the enemy.

The problem here is that there's no documentation explaining this.

If I click "Advance", I would expect the Unit to move towards the current enemy position, putting down fire in the meanwhile. What this command really should say is "Take point".

True that.

Throw away the useless stuff and/or finally make a Command Menu that is more intuitiv to use, Dragon Rising had a really great squad command menu...

1000 times better then the current ArmA2 one.

This is a bad joke right?

How a menu where all you can do is "follow me/stay here", "line formation/wedge formation" is a better one?

And where exactly is the "useless stuff" in BIS menu? Enlighten me

Edited September 29, 2011 by metalcraze

[katipo66 94]

I've become saddened to see ArmA fans around here who seem to have a bad case of CoD penis envy. all trying desperately to think of ways to make ArmA "attractive". but it's never going to happen. you cannot make a milsim attractive to people with absolutely no interest in milsims.

Same shit different day! No one has COD penis envy, where did you read into that?

Arma is not hard, the few people I have shown got it easily, I figured it out easily.... With ofp I figured out the editor and basic waypoints, squad ctrl etc without even looking on the webs, so if I got it i think most anyone can.

Personally I think there's room to accommodate larger tactical variations off the traditional game types, I've seen some arma versions trying to replicate these in an arena but these fail IMO because Arma is not arena! I think pvpscene is on the right track...

And I think there's a large base of other gamers out there who would happily fill Arma servers, if you build it they will come :p

Ever since I setup warfare on Shapur I thought why is this not on server because it's probably one of my best Arma highlights.

No one who loves Arma wants to see anything removed, improved on yes.. But not dumbed down etc etc.. Stop being drama queens :)

Edited September 29, 2011 by Katipo66

[wiggum2 31]

This is a bad joke right?

How a menu where all you can do is "follow me/stay here", "line formation/wedge formation" is a better one?

And where exactly is the "useless stuff" in BIS menu? Enlighten me

Oh, you could do a lot more with the DR command-menu, for example give the order to supress a specific position, shouldn't such stuff be in ArmA since years ? :o

It was easy to understand, fast and accurate. I had my squad far better under control then in ArmA with his command menu from the Stone Age.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Wiggum

[instagoat 133]

This is something people seem to think a lot, that we (the ones who want some improvements on the game to happen, and throw a lot of buzzwords around in the process, like "Accessibillity" and "Ease of entry") want the game to be made more "accessible" by "taking out everything that´s supposedly hard".

This is, (I hope) not the case, at least not for me.

I am fond of my toybox, and I don´t want the next iteration to take any of the features out. I want high command, the modules, the units, the maps, the massive amount of commands, the AI, the openness and randomness.

What I for example mean by "accessibillity" is tutorials that actually show the full range of commands, why they´re there and how they´re used. Same for pretty much every feature. A new player has to feel secure that they´ve been given the tools to fulfill their mission. My friends didn´t feel secure, because of the massive amount of content that was just thrown at them without explanation of what to do with it.

Scaled tutorials, full body of content, improved labelling of the commands and more intuitive, clever context sensitive menus, less units with greater fidelity and features, and the possibillity to bring back all the goodies we´ve been playing with up until now.

I bet there are a lot of people out there who would play Arma, and would grow fond of it, if they were just led into it a bit more gentle, instead of frust-bombing them into submission.

The hobby could do with some reinforcements, but right now, getting into it is a bit difficult. I hope the team will fell the right decisions, not ditch the base gameplay that makes Arma so great, but instead focuses on explaining it so well that even the impatient players are captured. And if they then don´t get it, they´re probably the wrong demographic.

[NielsS 10]

Instagoat, what about those training missions that are in Arma 2 and OA?

When i got OA i did the training missions that had the new features in it. Once i did them i was able to use those features in playing and making missions.

Maybe they can be broadened with some missions about the more basic stuff instead of thinking about putting in some consolish radial menu.:ok:

[weaponsfree 46]

I think Instagoat is on the money in terms of accessibility, but there is something perhaps a little more visceral that is required as well. As an example:

I remember playing GRAW2 for PC, and thinking that it did an OK job with keeping the Ghost Recon experience, but I especially remember the immensely satisfying gun shooting. The audio, animation and art for the guns was excellent. Seems Battlefield 3 is also doing a damn good job in that department. OFP up to Arma has never had a truly solid gun shooting feel. You don't feel so much that you've just fired a gun, but rather that you've sent a memo to the game asking for the gun to be fired.

The poor muzzle flash has been complained about before, and the engine's limitations are well known, but for a new player I think a strong gut feeling pop is missing from firing your gun.

Perhaps the new animation system being worked on may improve this, and audio mods have often given the guns more "umph". But I think it will help in making players stick around long enough to realize that the nature of the game is well beyond their first impressions.

(BTW, on the receiving end, it's another story. The sound of bullet clips, the dust kicking up around you, a massive RPG detonation next to you, an GAU-8 burst poping at the enemy position in front of you. This I find works much better than the small arms shooting.)

[instagoat 133]

Instagoat, what about those training missions that are in Arma 2 and OA?

When i got OA i did the training missions that had the new features in it. Once i did them i was able to use those features in playing and making missions.

Maybe they can be broadened with some missions about the more basic stuff instead of thinking about putting in some consolish radial menu.:ok:

The OA tutorials are a step in the right direction, and they´re much better than what came with Arma 2 vanilla. However, they´re not enough.

For example, the HC one explains you how to set waypoints... and that´s it. Details like what type of Unit does what, or how to set up medical support units and stuff like that is left for the player to find out on his own.

The tutorials only teach the bare bones right now, and not the juicy bits.

Someone like the current default arma gamer, who is more or less versed in military procedures, knows what a base of fire and a pincer movement is, and how to execute these ingame will have no problem with that kind of setup.

The usual customer, however, isn´t set up for this kind of game. Even if they´re the mature type that´s usually drawn to the Armas, if they´ve played nothing but the new Rainbow Six´s, Ghost Recons and especially mainstream shooters like the fish game or battlefield, they will have been trained to run around like a headless chicken and die a lot in arma.

I think the game, after improvements (not cutting anything out) to the command interfaces, will need to give new players a rundown of how an infantry squad is used in the battlefield, what weapons are for and how best to use them.

Most people will know what an AT gunner does. But how to properly use a SAW-gunner to greatest effect, or a Designated Marksman, or how to set up an ambush on the fly, or select a good route for an attack, reading terrain, reacting to contact, or even navigation with only map and compass will need to be explained to people. And, the realistic way of playing the game, ie, no waypoint markers, no HUD, things like that will need to be presented to the player as something juicy and enjoyable.

The best arma experience is gained when playing with the help off and AI skill to the max, in my experience, and that is what people should be trained for.

tl;dr: Add tutorials for land navigation, employment of assets, basics in combat movement and planning, and specialised weapon tutorials, with a big kobayashi maru style "exercise" at the end, which will test everything the player has learned. Make the training fun, and passing it an achievement. But without actual achievements in the game, please, I find those a cheap way of creating interest in the game.

[dissaifer 10]

Toybox... that is a really good name for Arma, it's much better than 'game.'

UI, yes everyone says we need a better UI. I agree. I also agree that radial was a pretty good way to make it. But no one has made a mod to change the UI, radial or otherwise - at least that I'm aware of. If my scripting skills were better I'd do it myself, but I hardly have the time or patience to painfully learn the scripting language for Arma. Not that it is terrible but the documentation is poor and little 'oh - that's how that works' takes forever.

I also agree the tutorials are pretty bare bones, but about the only user made tutorial mission I've seen is for Helicopters (and it was pretty cool). So, there is another gap 'We', the community can fix as well.

And for the 'game' part or easing in new players. Well, you have to think about the current state of games - usually if you point at it and pull the trigger, it dies, if you die you come back quickly, the area is small, and you are usually trying to unlock ... something 'better', especially in multi player. This actually has been done in Arma and it was called Evo, which is why it was probably so successful.

Now, if you played America's army... that unlock system I think would go over super well in Arma. You have to qualify with the weapon, then you got to use it in multiplayer and some of those qualifications were no joke. I'm actually surprise no one took that method and made a multiplayer set up for that yet.

Now, am I saying that BI isn't responsible for the game they've made, tutorials (or lack of), or difficulty of use... No. But I am saying that other than complaining on the forums we can help them along the way, by making some well needed mods.

You have to think, the people that make some of these complaints easier in game are going to be community heroes.

And on that note, why isn't BIS like Blizzard and just steal the really good mods and put them directly into the game... my 2 cents for what it's worth.

[ghost101 10]

This is something people seem to think a lot, that we (the ones who want some improvements on the game to happen, and throw a lot of buzzwords around in the process, like "Accessibillity" and "Ease of entry") want the game to be made more "accessible" by "taking out everything that´s supposedly hard".This is something people seem to think a lot, that we (the ones who want some improvements on the game to happen, and throw a lot of buzzwords around in the process, like "Accessibillity" and "Ease of entry") want the game to be made more "accessible" by "taking out everything that´s supposedly hard".

The negative reaction to the term "accessbility" is probably comming from people who actually understand what the word means and the effect its religious application has had on the vast majority of dull, challengeless games created today.

Judging by your last two posts, I think a better term for you to be using would be "usability". Usability includes the issue of enhancing "ease of use" and "learnability" of software by providing better documentation and redesigning interfaces and, i agree, is definitely something BIS should aim for with ArmA.

Accessability, on the other hand, literally results in "dumbing down" software to enable the lowest common denominator (in terms of mental capabilities and motivation) to gain access to and enjoy software and other stuff in society at the expense of depth and complexity. Wikipedia has two very good articles on the subjects:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability

BIS currently continue to use the term "accessibility" when refering to ArmA 3, and when you couple that with Ivan's announcement that BIS plan to make ArmA more accessible by cutting back on the level of squad control in ArmA 3's main campaign, you can kind of see why some of us are a bit concerned.

There was a time (not too long ago) when games were made to be usable, but offer a great challenge. Nowadays, you get a "con" mark against the review of your game if the reviewer's 4 year old child found it a bit "difficult to play".

tl;dr: Add tutorials for land navigation, employment of assets, basics in combat movement and planning, and specialised weapon tutorials, with a big kobayashi maru style "exercise" at the end, which will test everything the player has learned. Make the training fun, and passing it an achievement. But without actual achievements in the game, please, I find those a cheap way of creating interest in the game.

Definitely agree with you here. Make the trainning feel realistic and give it context, as though you are in a real bootcamp. Structure it as a military training academy or something, which offers training modules on the various skills and basic tactic ideas you will need to play the game effectively and "properly". Would be nice to create it as a fully developed ArmA campaign (intro scenes of the training officer explaining ideas, such as flanking, etc before the cadets took to the training field to practice maneuvers)

like you say, probably the biggest problem is that potential new players (ie, the ones who would like to play but just can't seem to get to grips with the game) have no idea how ArmA needs to be played. It's all very well learning basic controls, but if you're only used to playing solo rambo-shooters, then you will not understand why you continually die using the same approach in ArmA. The "ArmA Cadet Academy" could be used to not only teach them about controls, but to also make ArmA's realistic gameplay approach clear from the start.

Edited September 29, 2011 by ghost101

[instagoat 133]

Good note on the words, I´ll use usabillity from now on. Thanks for making that clear, I really should´ve paid more attention there. Would be nice if BI themselves would also switch the terms, and be clear on wether or not they´re permanently cutting anything in favour of the bad buzzword.

As for the cadet academy, good Idea. Maybe that´s something the community needs to provide, however. I doubt BI have the time and manpower to provide an extensive set of connected tutorials.

[w945563 10]

Seriously, I do not see the problem. ArmA has its own, quite specific (as in present times) style of gameplay. Perhaps it is not the easiest, not the most user frendly etc. But look what happened with series like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six.

[Don Camillo 10]

Had the same Problems with getting people into ArmA. But that's the way ArmA is. It is complex, has almost endless options to play around with and thats exactly what makes it so unique. In any other shooter (and i've played them all^^), the Squad-trainings - so far we played it competitive, are anding up after a very short period, in learnig maps by rote. And from this point on, it got somehow boring. If you take a look on CoD, AAO, BF aso., the good Squads know every single Pixel on their maps, wich made 80% of their success, 10% was Skill/Reactions, the rest was a result of tweaking Grafic- and Sound-Systems. Teamplay itself has net that huge Impact, because the speed of the most FPS is mostly to high to stay together in a way that makes sense.

In ArmA the right attempt for Squad-Training is learning about Landnavigation, reading Maps, knowlege about Weapon-Systems, Communcation, Formations, aso, aso.. In this case, Trainings can start up with "Getting a rifleman", moves to "Getting the member of a Fireteam", ... and with that knowledge we've invested a huge amount of Trainig-Hours, and still just know about maybe a view percent of everting out in the ArmAverse.

In a regular FPS, everbody is a Specops within a day. In ArmA, within a day you're more or less a Civilian, able to fire a Handgun onto Targets out in 15 meter distance.

How many times i've heared spells like "i'm more the Sniper-Guy, operating allone" from rookies with a view weeks of experience.

Well, after flying them somewhere into a forrest (without GPS of course) they did'nt even find their Targets. Not talking about the following trialAndError-Shooting spending their 15 rounds without even one Hit from a M24 (ACE enabled ;p), over approx. 700m.

0% of these Dudes where "the Sniperguys". But thats the Point: No one of them where somehow stupid, they simply expected something different.

They expectet a game where a magic Marker shows the Way, another marker shows the Target, and Bullets wich are'nt influenced by Gravity and Wind.

Only a view of them after all where willing to learn all this, and still enjoy the Game as a continious learning-Process. Thats what ArmA is to me, and that's what i expect it to stay. No Question: some things like menues could be reworked, but thats not essentially to me.

Hugh, so far

fREAk

[EricM 0]

I think Arma, excluding CWA, is not a game. It is a hobby.

I totally agree on that part. This is like DYI or Lego... Even moreso when you consider modding or scripting.

I spent way more time goofing around in the editor, hiking and doing moutainbike in Chernarus, flying lowlevels over the trees etc. than shooting people. In that sense, the freedom to me is everything in Arma and realism is just an interesting side effect.

On the other hand, the lack of structure of the public MP is a clear pb for newcomers.

On a last note, even if a sandbox game cannot rival in terms of cinematics faced with a scripted corridor shooter, GTA and Assassin's Creed also showed that you could still mix a certain form of openness to good storytelling.

[wiggie 24]

I know exactly what your saying man.

I currently have 3 other friends that play with me, and another is in fact downloading it right now. I have another getting it next month and probably 2 more who will follow suit. Thankfully, my group of friends is the type that prefers the deep, realistic gameplay that only arma can offer but to most it is too daunting.

My cousian for instance, and brother, who both play the game now, and love it, hated it at first. They were put off by the bad campaign and gameplay, and it took me a long while to bring them back around to playing it. However, once I got them playing co-op with me, installing mods and making missions, they quickly turned their opinions.

My advice, encourage people, show them the best bits and make a few fun missions that you can all play together. Just like the idea of Inception, once you plant the little seed of fun, it will quickly grow and they will take to the game.

[HR4 Elite 10]

Arma is ahead of its time, always has been from what I see. It’s a mil sim if you want it to be, it’s a game if you want it to be, it can even cater to the brain dead shot-em all brigade if that’s what they want it to be. The fact that it can be all of that and much, much more is what makes it ahead of its time and ahead of any other game/sims out there..

I can spend 10mins in the editor making a simple mission/scenario that puts side against side for a simple end result, I could play that simple mission/scenario and switch it to the desert, jungle, tropics, winter snow, the old style eastern block, countryside, city, town, village, forests, mountains, the list go’s on and on and the gameplay would be different everytime, that simple scenario could keep some casual gamers happy for weeks, achieved in 10mins with a few mod islands/maps to change the scenery, there’s lots of games out there just like that.. That’s how basic Arma can really be if that’s all you want from it, the problem is that when you arrive at its gates for the first time it suddenly appears to you that it can be soooo much more, every mission/scenario in the world jumps out at you, then you want it all, there and then, no time to wait, unfortunately it just won’t happen, that will only happen for those who give it time, you just have to remember it can be a simple game where you decide who are the sides, the amount per side, the setting, the weather, year/month/date and time, in just ten mins it can be all of that, those who can't see that simply ‘miss out’.. The OP’s friends simply ‘missed out’, nothing to do with Arma, Arma is there to entertain, if you expand your imagination its every sim/game and any sim/game you want it to be in this type of genre... everything is there ready and waiting for you..

10mins its a good game..

an hour or so its a great game..

the more time you give to it, the better it becomes..

To anyone reading this forum who wants to get into arma2 or 3, don't 'miss out' it will be what you want it to be, provided of course you know what that is..

.

[Cripsis 10]

The fact of the matter is that figuring out how to install mods is a freaking nightmare for the average gamer and that's exactly why most people give up on ArmA, they never get the opportunity to experience it's magic.

Sad but true.

[ghost101 10]

eh? creating a @mod directory in the ArmA root is difficult?

[NielsS 10]

The OA tutorials are a step in the right direction, and they´re much better than what came with Arma 2 vanilla. However, they´re not enough.

For example, the HC one explains you how to set waypoints... and that´s it. Details like what type of Unit does what, or how to set up medical support units and stuff like that is left for the player to find out on his own.

You are right about the HC one. I was really interested about HC from the moment it was announced but found the tutorial seriously lacking. There was a singleplayer mission that featured it but i realized after several times playing that you needed to use HC to finish it. The first few times i was trying to figure out why the vehicles wern't moving.FPDR

[Cripsis 10]

eh? creating a @mod directory in the ArmA root is difficult?

I challenge you to post a detailed step by step explanation of how to install Advanced Combat Environment 2 - Core mod + Zeus AI Combat Skills & AI Spotting modular -ACE for the Operation Arrowhead standalone expansion.

Don't forget about the required 3rd party mods.

I have unsuccessfully tried twice to convince freinds to re-install Operation Arrowhead and install those mods but both times they gave up in fustration.

It's not as easy as you portray.

[rye1 21]

This is true, it's hard for a complete noob.

Arma 2 @Themod addons folder within that pbo's and bisign's

OR IT SAY NO NO

Download Six updater -> run as admin (right click for god sake) -> execute ... OR .... presets -> edit -> add the mods you want -> update -> execute.

THEN!

Arma2oa.exe -> right click, target line/commande line -> add onto the END of it -mod=@themod;@themod2;@blahblahblah

Edited October 1, 2011 by Rye

[Cripsis 10]

Rye you forgot many crucial steps. Understandably they are details that an ARMA veteran like yourself would take for granted and forget to even mention, but for the average gamer it's those small yet critical details that prevent them from unlocking ARMA's pure awesomeness.

[hellfire257 3]

I think I've just found the most sensible thread in the entire ARMA3 section.

[nodunit 397]

Well lets take a look at the gameplay from their perspective, particularly the controls.

The first thing likely is the movement system, wondering why it takes a second to respond and why the character handles the gun so "oddly" now that they are used to the titan grip guys have of their weapons in shooters.

Why is crouch a toggle rather than holding ctrl? Why do my shots not land where I fire?

Why does my character fatigue when I'm not holding the sprint key?

Why did I get shot through a wall that was not destroyed?

Why can't I jump? Where is the menu to join/switch squads?

Lets take a look at Arma2 online vs say BF2, in battlefield you join the game, you press a button that brings up class selection prior to spawn as well as squad joining, making the process smooth and very user friendly. In Arma you join up, click gear tab, go through gear to select what you want..while this offers more freedom in equipment it takes considerably more time especially when we get more and more weapon variety.

Now lets take a look at vehicles, generally a vehicle in most games is nothing more than a box on wheels, stab or shoot it in the wheels, it won't matter. So your average player will be confused when a wheel is shot out and the vehicle is suddenly slow and unresponsive. They can also be shot through the vehicle which would lead to confusion and thoughts of cheating. Likewise helicopters are mere flying boxes, shooting the rotors often yields no damage, there is no concern for things such as fuel leaks, engine damage or rotor damage.

Also take a look at the keyboard interface, typically weapon cycles are done via the number keys whereas in Arma it's done through F, this is where the number keys and a more ergonomic interface clash because if you replace the number keys with weapons how will you command? Via commos rose? True that you can get some actions out of it but you will not have as swift response in selecting set squad units.

Now what also needs to be thought about is how would these changes clash with community freedom in modding? Many say that the action menu is an aggrivating thing but how does one go about cleaning it up? A commas rose while probably able to take care of the basic functions, may not allow as much freedom for custom content highly scripted.

There is a solution to that when it comes to vehicles and that is interactivity, flaps up/down, gear up/down and engines on are generally a one time for a long while use which is likely why BI made the gear automatic yet many detested that. The counterbalance of course is that it takes more time and effort to look around and select the switch necessary.

It's funny typing all this up..we take for granted what arma is but it's not until we go back to comparing that we see..while it may not be steel beasts or DCS, it is far more simulated than anything mainstream would throw. In the end Arma will NEVER be appealing enough for the majority of mainstream gamers, and that is a good thing because if it did then it would have lost so much of what made it stand out for better or worse.

[hellfire257 3]

Yeah, what he said...

Good post, lol! :)

[Cripsis 10]

I don't believe the control system or the realistic gameplay elements are an obstacle for most newbies, the problem seems to be that they become bitterly dissapointed after installing ARMA only to find out that all the epic ARMA gameplay footage they seen posted on youtube actually required a combination of mods.

It shouldn't require noobs to install the ACE and ZeusAI mods, those features should already be included. ARMA straight out of the box is never going to impress newbies, simple as that.